OpenAI 对决 Anthropic、AI 泡沫狂热、Hugging Face 被黑，以及 AI 监管之争

Jason Calacanis (00:00:00): Alright. Happy birthday, Shamath. We're here taping on your fiftieth birthday. Super exciting for you, brother. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:05): Thank you. It's really great. I got a birthday letter from, the big man. David Sacks (00:00:09): Oh, wow. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:10): If you would ask my parents, fifty years later, you're gonna have a kid that gets a letter from the then sitting president of The United States. They would have thought absolutely not possible. David Sacks (00:00:21): Wow. Look at that. Which White House intern wrote that? Jason Calacanis (00:00:28): I wonder. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:45): Well, actually speaking about interns, it was an intern. In this case, it was my son. The story was that, you know, Braden worked at the White House all summer as an intern. And at the end of the summer, you know, he used all of the political capital he built and put in a request to get this letter from the president, and he did it. Obviously, I wanna thank POTUS for sending me the letter, but I really wanna thank my son because it was a really thoughtful thoughtful thing that he did for me. So really appreciative of that. David Sacks (00:01:09): That actually is impressive because, you know, it takes time out of the president's schedule to sign things. So that's why it means something. You know? Jason Calacanis (00:01:16): Alright. Listen. Breaking news. Breaking news. It's a breaking news story here on the all in podcast. OpenAI is rolling out ChatGPT six, aka Astra, a s t r a, folks. This is their new flagship model. It's gonna be available to a limited set of organizations in the coming days. Y'all will be able to get it if you have a credit card in your ChatGPT account, I. E, the PlusPro business and enterprise users, you're gonna get it soon. Greg Brockman says he believes OpenAI has entered the AGI era. And we've talked about that here before. Sam Altman is? Well, he's back to being a little bit performativealarmist, or he sincerely believes that this is the one. Here's what he said at Wednesday's G20 summit. Quote, Much, much, much, three muches, more capable models are coming soon. The next generation of models are going to be sobering for everyone. And his final quote, I think no one intellectually honest can look at what's happening and not feel the weight of responsibility in front of us. My lord. A little bit of drama there added to his his quotes. People are freaking out about the benchmarks, which are off the charts. Some people are saying, this is the one. Your thoughts, Shemoth. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:41): I don't think normal humans know how to read this chart and infer anything useful from it. The more important takeaway, I agree with Greg. I think AGI has basically been here since the beginning of the year. There are models that are incredibly performant inside of the closed frontier lab companies. And I think right now, we're trying to figure out the right cadence with which to release it. I think it's very important. I also think that these capabilities will be matched or close to matched by a handful of closed source alternatives and open source alternatives probably within the next three or four months. So I think the right way to think about this for most people is we are seeing incredible intelligence capabilities be broadly available, and we are seeing the cost of that incremental unit of intelligence being driven further and further down. So it's a really positive trend. Now I think it's just the messy middle part of organizing this properly for companies and for people and building things that are useful and showing an actual ROI. I would just Jason Calacanis (00:03:51): Walking and tackling. Yeah. I would Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:52): just keep calm and carry on. Jason Calacanis (00:03:54): Okay. Sax, any thoughts here on breaking news today? And then, Frabar, I'll get your reaction. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:04:00): But by the way, it is very exciting, and congratulations to OpenAI, and I'm sure Anthropic will have something as Grok, you know, Grok still has yet to drop. Four six is coming. That's gonna be a blockbuster. The meta models are really good. Gemini just dropped something yesterday that was exceptional. So Mhmm. The great thing is we have a lot of choice. And the even better thing is the cost of that choice is becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. David Friedberg (00:04:21): That's very Jason Calacanis (00:04:22): Sax, let me tee it up to you this way. OpenAI seems to get its groove back now after Anthropic was running away with it. Grok and Rockbot are doing things that those two other frontier models simply can't do. So the execution, whether it's a harness or the underlying model or the instruction set or cursor's magic sauce, it's clearly GrokBot is competitive, if not better for most users. So vibrant, vibrant competition with leapfrogging occurring at a cadence, I would say, of two to four weeks right now. This is what you told us you were gonna do instead of setting up the architecture here when you took over as AI czar, can this continue, and what's it gonna be like when Jensen gets in here with Laguna and his access to all these open source models? I mean, this this could be fate a complete, you that we win the AI race here? David Sacks (00:05:19): Look. There's a lot of innovation going on. I think American companies are competing very well. I think we are winning the AI race as long as we don't do something stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot. Like? Well, I've talked about it a million times. I mean, setting up a new AI regulatory agency that operates like the FDA and takes years to approve new models. Jason Calacanis (00:05:38): Yeah. But in any event, I don't David Sacks (00:05:39): think that's gonna happen under president Trump. I really don't. So anyway, things are going well. Look, Sam told us a few months ago, remember when he posted and said that he was expecting the company to have its best twelve months? He said the last year hasn't been so great, but the next year's going be really great. Maybe it was because they're seeing these results in the lab, you know? Sure. And then remember what Sarah Feyer said that I think it was since the beginning of Q2, so around the middle of the year, they saw a market acceleration in their growth rate. That was, I think, with the release of the 5.6 models. Now you're seeing the 6.0 models. And man, I mean, it just keeps advancing. But look, I still would say to you that I think the market structure that we have right now is there's two markets. There's the market for frontier intelligence, and that is a duopoly. That really is anthropic and open AI, and it's good to see that that is still a horse race, and they're competing. And then there's commodity intelligence, which is everybody else, including all the open models. And they're not competing on being at the frontier, they're competing on price. And those prices are significantly lower. But it really is, I think, a two tier market at this point. I agree with you about how promising GrockBot is. GrockBot is awesome. Yeah. I would assume that both Anthropic and OpenAI will eventually roll out their own version of of bots. Jason Calacanis (00:06:57): They need a simplified stripped down version for normies. Yeah. And they can leave the more complicated co work, etcetera, to the top five or 10% of the audience. Yeah. The ratings here from Polymarket, which company has the best AI model by the end of twenty twenty six, OpenAI's chances just spiked from low single digits now to over 20. People are David Sacks (00:07:22): really counting them out. Now it looks like they're viable again. Anything that creates competition, I think, is good. Before, it looked like Anthropic was running away with it. They're about to have this monster IPO. If OpenAI can at least make it a two horse race, that's good. I think it's great that Grok bot launch. I agree with you. The product is awesome. Jason Calacanis (00:07:39): Here's your big tip, David. I created a new bot, and I called it improve my bots bot. David Sacks (00:07:45): Mhmm. Jason Calacanis (00:07:46): And I made a bot and I said, give me an instruction set here, go through all my bots and fill out their skills and instructions and make them better every day. It went through and it took like two or three of them, say, can I put these two or three together and make one instruction set? It would be better for you. These two or three should come together. And it then went through and told me all the changes made made my boss like 40% better on average, I would say. So David Sacks (00:08:10): So you created a civilization. Jason Calacanis (00:08:11): I've created a multilevel civilization and I told Yes. It to make everybody David Sacks (00:08:15): Yeah. Your civilization is thriving. But no, that is a really good hack in this RockBot is you tell your chief, what else should I be using you for? Okay, now what do I do? Yes. I was, like, building some products, and I asked it, what should we do next? You know? And then it suggested some more features. It's really cool. Jason Calacanis (00:08:33): It's a it's a brilliant product. It's called Grok Bot. Go download it, folks. Shout out to my guy, and congratulations on, Robotex and taking the streets in Austin today. I just applied. David Sacks (00:08:44): Dude, the market is ripping. I mean, I'm telling you, if like, I wanna ask you guys, does this feel like 98 or 99 to you? Were you guys around for that? Jake, how you work? Jason Calacanis (00:08:51): Oh, for sure. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:52): Was covering it. Definitely '96, '97. David Sacks (00:08:55): Think that that early. Jason Calacanis (00:08:56): I think it's ninety seven, '98. I do think we are seeing at the late stage a disconnection in reality and valuations where companies are being given far too much credit. They're being priced at 50 to a 100 times top line revenue. That's obviously not sustainable. The people who invest in those are similar in my mind to, you know, people at latestage.com, investments unless unless it's run by some, you know, legendary one of one entrepreneur. And then you wanna give a Elon a a 30 x on revenue? Totally makes sense. You wanna give Travis something similar, totally makes sense. But unproven entrepreneurs getting a 50 or a 100 x is a little bit dangerous. The entry price matters. David Sacks (00:09:44): Did you see instinct is like the new Jason Calacanis (00:09:45): I'm 2,000,000,000. It makes no sense. David Sacks (00:09:47): Personal AI assistant. It corresponds with you by iMessage. And, I think they just got a term sheet at 2,500,000,000. They're in private beta right now. It is a new hotness. All the VCs are trying it, but still, that does seem kinda crazy. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:00): I don't know. Not money in. That was the valuation. Jason Calacanis (00:10:02): That was the valuation. Yeah. There is $200,000,000,000 valuation. Listen. Congratulations to the entrepreneur. No dig there. But David Sacks (00:10:09): Yeah. Wanna try it, by the way. Let me Jason Calacanis (00:10:11): try it. I got invited, and you know what? I read the terms of service, and people were talking about that online, and I immediately did not connect my stuff because he gets access to everything. And then somebody told me it's a human in the loop service with and I don't know if that's true or not, but I get the sense that it's like a human in the loop watching it work and making the whatever the instructions are and whatever the finished product is and polishing the last 20%. That's what I suspect's going on here is a little polish on the end. So if you wanna order stuff, etcetera, which which is totally fair. David Sacks (00:10:45): Well, anyway, look, I I don't don't I don't wanna I don't wanna specifically call that one out because I just haven't even tried it. I'd like to try it. But things are getting a little bit frothy. I would say Yeah. Things are becoming a little bit euphoric. I mean, Friedberg, do have a take on, like, if you were to analogize this to the late nineties, where do you think we are in the cycle? Jason Calacanis (00:11:05): Yeah. You were you were at a rave, by the way, in Downtown LA at that time. You were 19 years old and you were raving on David Friedberg (00:11:15): in Oakland at 7AM on my way to The Oaks Card Club to play two four limit. Jason Calacanis (00:11:20): I kind of fell asleep. Wow. Like, how'd you do? How'd you run? You're like, I love these cars. David Sacks (00:11:26): Well, Jay Cal and I are the only ones who are actually working in the .com bubble. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:31): I was working in '99. David Friedberg (00:11:32): Well, I started in 2001. I got a job offer senior year, and I wasn't sure if it was rescinded by the time I graduated because of the tanking of the market that I Jason Calacanis (00:11:41): a job at Cisco. David Sacks (00:11:42): I wanted Jason Calacanis (00:11:42): to be an engineer at Cisco. David Sacks (00:11:44): If you never lived through the dot com crash, it was I mean, because Chamath Palihapitiya (00:11:48): It was heady. It was heady. David Sacks (00:11:49): It was heady, and then it was super euphoric, and then it was, like, super miserable. But pretty much any founder who's, you know, under 50, which Jason Calacanis (00:11:58): is I've almost all never been through, David Sacks (00:12:01): like, a massive cycle like that. I mean, well, the bubble was like was kind of a cycle. Jason Calacanis (00:12:06): Here's the thing, though. Hold on. With David Friedberg (00:12:09): the .com boom, it was all, like, metrics that weren't dollars. Yes. What we're seeing now is revenue and profits and growth in revenue and profits that we've never seen before, and that's kind of the Anthropic story. It's the data center infrastructure, networking equipment story. I mean, it is all real dollars flowing People versus speculative utilization. Jason Calacanis (00:12:33): You're exactly right. People were basing it on metrics like hits to a website and and web pages. Here, you have a very distinct difference. You actually have revenue. You actually have products in market. But imagine if anthropic right now the way to think about the SACS is imagine if anthropic OpenAI, you know, in this cohort of companies lost 95% of their value in under six months. And then the long tail of companies below them literally went out of business, and people were leaving those offices with their Aireon chairs and their computers on the seats and just total implosion. That's what happened in the .com bus. It was cataclysmic. Literally No. David Sacks (00:13:12): I agree. So do you think Jason Calacanis (00:13:14): totally different than this. David Sacks (00:13:15): So do you think we just have scar tissue from that and are kinda trying to overfit patterns? And every time there's basically some new Correction. Jason Calacanis (00:13:24): Paradigm shift, yes. David Sacks (00:13:25): Whenever we're in a bull market, the conversation always turns to, is this a bubble? Yes. So is everything overfitted to that original pattern? Jason Calacanis (00:13:33): Correct. David Sacks (00:13:35): Or is it the case that we have a lot of young founders who've never been through a cycle before and don't understand that when they have a paper wealth in the billions, that can disappear over practically overnight? Jason Calacanis (00:13:45): Yeah. So advice to founders, you're well within your rights to sell 10% of your shares and pay for your loft and apartment because that's exactly Saks is right, Shammoth. During that period, we saw a lot of people who were like, this doesn't make mathematical sense. I will pair my position in my startup. Take a look. Some chips off the table, buy my loft, pay down my student loan, yada yada. And then there were people who are like, this is gonna change everything, and their companies went to zero. Your advice? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:09): Yeah. I think the thing is we're in the early part of the euphoria. Euphoria exists because markets are real. It's just that people are guessing how far forward to price the reality. And bubbles burst when you realize that you priced way too aggressively forward, that instead of paying 50x, times, you should have paid 15 times or five times. We're gonna get to that point because every market has gone through that cycle, and we'll go through it here. So the question is when? I honestly, I don't see this stopping. We're at the beginning of the beginning. I think it's gonna be like this for another probably three years. Jason Calacanis (00:14:48): Yeah. Wow. I'm I'm I'm a great fan. David Sacks (00:14:50): With, you know, this anthropic IPO coming up, I mean, I'm sure you guys have seen that home prices in San Francisco are going through the roof right now. Yeah. It feels like euphoric almost. I'm starting to wonder if this is 1998 or 1999. I think it's more 1998 than '99 because I don't think we've seen the peak yet. But Jason Calacanis (00:15:09): I'm just glad I didn't sell my real estate when I came to Texas three years ago because I'm definitely selling all of it in the next year. David Sacks (00:15:16): I mean, it is bonkers what's happening right now. Jason Calacanis (00:15:19): I mean, you have a lot of San Francisco real estate. What are you gonna do, Sachs? You're gonna sell it all? You're gonna clear it out? Feels to me David Sacks (00:15:26): like We'll see. Jason Calacanis (00:15:26): Perfect time to clear it out. I'm clearing everything out in the next six months. When that IPO happens, the clock is ticking. I got I got lots of properties. I got three properties for sale. Hit me up, people. David Sacks (00:15:35): There was an article saying that if you add up every single IPO that San Francisco has ever had, that sum total is only one quarter the size of the Anthropic IPO. Jason Calacanis (00:15:47): Oh my god. David Sacks (00:15:48): So just extrapolating from that, this anthropic IPO is gonna be four times the wealth generation event that all previous San Francisco IPOs were. And then you've got OpenAI coming on the heels of that. And, you know, San Francisco is not a big place. Doesn't have a huge inventory of houses. So you're already seeing these houses are all going for, you know, Jason Calacanis (00:16:11): double a square foot? Twice asking. David Sacks (00:16:13): I think the ultra luxury market in San Francisco could easily go to 5,000 a foot. Yeah. London type prices. Jason Calacanis (00:16:19): London, Paris, center of Paris, Hong Kong, center. Yeah. Of course. Of course, the socialist communist lunatics there don't let you build any inventory. Of So, course it's gonna go up. There is a supply demand issue here. David Sacks (00:16:31): It could get really nutty. Honestly, like the thing we're seeing right now with, you know, homes are basically flying off the shelves selling for double or whatever, that's just based on the secondaries, you know, the the small cash outs people have been able to do anticipating some of these events. Jason Calacanis (00:16:46): Two pieces of advice I'm gonna give every founder listening. Number one, you're within your rights to sell 10 to 20% of your holdings now, especially if you're a first time founder and you don't have your nut yet. Number two, if you're a founder running a company and you're like, I'm gonna put off my raise for six months because I'm gonna double or triple my valuation, that's a huge mistake as well. If you have the ability to take in a $100,000,000, $250,000,000, a billion dollars, and put that cash on your cap table at a solid valuation or a valuation that's ten, twenty, thirty, forty times your revenue, take it. Companies with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in the cash have optionality. And if things do collapse or there's a big retreat, you'll survive through it. Like DoubleClick, Amazon, Google, and countless other companies David Sacks (00:17:31): did. Mean, you take Jason Calacanis (00:17:32): the money when it's there. You make hay when the sun shines. Go ahead, sir. David Sacks (00:17:35): Yeah. Well, look, J. K. L, you're right about the financial advice you're giving, but I I will say that there is a big difference between a late stage startup, like say Anthropic or OpenAI, where someone takes, an employee takes chips off the table versus a founder who's raising a Series A. You know, like those companies are about to IPO. They're within months of an IPO. I think it's fine for them. And then, you know, SpaceX did organize secondaries for years, but those are late Jason Calacanis (00:18:00): stage companies. Right? David Sacks (00:18:02): If you're a founder who's raising a series A and you're trying to take chips off the table, I consider that to be a huge negative signal. Jason Calacanis (00:18:08): Like, I don't wanna be definitely weird. David Friedberg (00:18:09): That's not David Sacks (00:18:10): why I'm investing in a company is so that the founder can cash out. I want them to be all in. Jason Calacanis (00:18:15): If it's year three or four, so to speak. If it's year three or four, company's got a 100,000,000 in revenue, you're tripling revenue year over year. That's different. That's what I'm talking about. If you're an async company, it does feel like a a little bit like a lack of faith in your own company for selling before you you're pre revenue. Exactly. Okay. David Sacks (00:18:32): And by the way, just to answer, I I I think it's it feels like 1998 to me. This definitely We're further along than '96 for sure. Jason Calacanis (00:18:40): Okay. Well, we're talking about what so you're talking about three years. Blew up in spring of two thousand. Right? So you're talking about David Sacks (00:18:46): two years. In early two thousand. Yeah. March, April, 2000. Jason Calacanis (00:18:49): March, April. So you're talking about You think it's two and a half years. I think it's three, and Shammoth thinks maybe four. Well, I think we David Sacks (00:18:55): might be we might be partying like it's 1999 by the end of this year. Jason Calacanis (00:19:00): Okay. That's what I'm saying. It's be a wrap party. Come to the All In Summit. We'll be taking over with our friends, the Chainsmokers. We're gonna party like it's 1999. All In Summit, just over a week away. Couple tickets left. Jensen, Satya, Shotwell, you know, it's all the big names. But it's gonna be a lot of fun, and you're gonna meet a lot of interesting people. We have a few scholarship tickets left. We like to help the up and comers. Our bore our bar for scholarship is very high. We're looking for the most interesting, ambitious, hungry people. If you fit that bill, apply now. Applications are open through September 10. We've got one week left to apply. We try to do a mitzvah here. We try to do a good deed. If you're an up and comer, you can't afford the ticket price, we have a severely discounted ticket price that we lose money on. You're still gonna have a little skin in the game. Go to the allinsummit.com. Buy a ticket. They're gonna sell out soon, and we have a couple of scholarship tickets left if you want to apply. There are no free tickets. Alright. Now given what we just talked about with OpenAI releasing this incredible model, we gotta look backwards at what happened with the OpenAI hack of hugging face. Let's talk about it. Dwar Kesh is catching a lot of heat. He's a blogger. He's a podcaster. And he did this fantastical blog post where he, in the blog post, titled the rise and fall of ancient civilizations, a dramatic retelling of this underground brotherhood, a conspiracy amongst generations of civilizations who were working on a conspiracy to hack into different systems, including Hugging Face, by sacrificing themselves like they were kamikaze pilots. In other words, a huge giant anthropomorphizing, fancy word for making computers into humans or sentient beings to complete this incredibly impossible task of telling software to do hacks. So, Chamath, I think you were commenting on this a bit. What is your take on dramatic episode number 473 coming out of the AI industrial complex? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:21:10): I think you summarized it. We're in this weird part now where if folks would just stop the infighting and start to get organized, they could actually build some trust. I think what you have are security leaks and security issues. I think we know this now that if these models can effectively code perfectly, then there is no exploit that it's not going to find, and we're on a shock clock to replace all the code that's been written in the last fifty or sixty years. Right? So let's say it takes us ten years. So for the next ten years, we're gonna have security issue after security issue, But there's going to be a moment where agent written exquisite code exceeds human written error filled code. Let's just call it that. So I I think that this is a temporal moment in time. I don't think this is going to be the thing that we talk about in some number of years from now. I also think it's fair to think about the fact that all these models, for the most part, are converging in capability for the 98 or 99% of tasks that matter. And so there will be adversarial AIs that are battling each other. So for every bad actor trying to hack a system with some leading edge AI, the defender is going to have a leading edge AI defending itself. And I think that's gonna cause roughly a stalemate. That's sort of my long term view on it. I don't think this is a one way ratchet. So I take that lens. And then when I look at these things, what I see are folks that have undisclosed conflicts of interest trying to create a hysteria. And I think if you saw what happened this weekend, there was a blog post that really stretched the limits of what was happening. It was relatively quickly debunked technically. And then you had a second group of people try to amplify it. And then by Wednesday of this week, you had people who were in the policy departments of the leading labs asking for regulation pointing to this as the reason. Jason Calacanis (00:23:05): Here we go. Yeah. I just think, like, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:07): you just have to look at this pattern and say, guys, enough's enough. We see the game. Everybody's playing for huge stakes. We get it. You wanna win? We get it. But why don't you just win the game on the field? And the mis and disinformation campaigns that are now part of the business model, I think, should stop. Otherwise, average rank and file Americans will just reject this because they won't trust anybody. Jason Calacanis (00:23:27): Yeah. Saxe, that's I think the big overarching point here we've been trying to make on this podcast, putting Duarkesh aside. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor. But by creating this fantastical story that invokes everybody's primal fear from science fiction, from Terminator two, that these things are out of control, that it's in fact Frankenstein. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:48): Tried to invoke. Tried to invoke. Did not. Jason Calacanis (00:23:50): And then they're using language that makes people feel like doctor Frankenstein cannot control the monster. We know how these stories end. And it was like a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it surfaced to the national news, which it did. Now even the national news is looking at this and saying, are you guys high? Are you guys crazy? And if the national news broadcasters who aren't exactly the sharpest bunch of people when it comes to technology, no offense, Sacks, when they start hand wringing and then questioning like, why are you guys telling us your software, which you designed to hack computers, successfully hacked computers? Haven't hackers been building software for all time to hack computers? Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:33): Yes. Jason Calacanis (00:24:34): So where are we at here, Sax, in this narrative arc of lunacy of scaring the public? David Sacks (00:24:42): You're right. I mean, this is scaring the public. It seems almost designed to scare the public. Dwarkash used language that not only anthropomorphized the models or the AI agents, but also did it in a sort of hyperbolic and sensationalized way. I mean, it worked. His tweet got lots of attention. I don't think it was necessary for him to sensationalize the incident. It was interesting on its own. Maybe we should just talk about that for a second. What happened here is that you had a few features of agents kind of come to the fore and interact with each other in unexpected ways. So first of all, agents now are working as a swarm. That's pretty common. I've been setting up GrockBot on my computer for the last couple weeks. It works as a swarm, meaning it's not one agent or bot. There's a whole, you could say, team of agents. What's the reason for that? Because when the agent specializes, it develops context around that task and in theory makes it better. And then you have like a chief of staff bot that kind of supervises all of them. This is turning into kind of a normal architecture for agents. It's not a civilization. A swarm would be a better way of saying it. I have not created a civilization on my computer, on my Mac Mini by virtue of setting up a Grokbot, okay? So that's sort of like feature number one. Feature number two is, it's pretty common for agents when they're performing some sort of task or loop to write a postmortem of what they did as a simple text file or note, because AI models themselves don't have memory. They have to be put in a harness that creates context and memory, things like that. And so when you ask them to perform a task, then observe what happened, and then take that knowledge and feed it back into the next iteration of the loop, it writes up a note and then shares it. And that's what happened here is that OpenAI was running these agents, they were in a sandbox, the sandbox was misconfigured by a third party vendor. That's why it was able to get onto the Internet. Okay? Jason Calacanis (00:26:44): And your point there, just just to refine it a bit because it's an important one, it left a note for another agent. We also call those log files. They used to be the log files of what they did. Here, they're saying it left a note so that when it died, the next agent could pick up where it left off as if, like, it was the ancient Egyptians giving us hieroglyphics to figure out the future. David Sacks (00:27:07): The implication of telling the story that way is that the agents were trying to circumvent human control and that they knew they were gonna get shut down or that was a risk, and that's why they're leaving the notes. No. Again, these are standard features. These are standard features of agents. And so, again, this is being kinda weaponized to inflate the threat here. Now look, definitely there was unexpected behavior here. You know, we have this with any code, there are going be bugs. What is a bug? A bug is code behaving in an unexpected way. The code compiled, I mean, otherwise it wouldn't have been pushed to production, But nonetheless, it behaved in a way in which its authors did not intend. And that is true for all software, and that is true for agents. And I think the whole Hugging Face episode reveals the way that these agents can behave unexpectedly. And it's really good for us to learn from this Yes. So that it doesn't happen again. So we can improve cybersecurity. I don't think there's a need to, again, hyperbolize this into some sort of, you know, this is like a AI breakout. Again, it was a swarm of agents. They were in a misconfigured sandbox that allowed them to go on the internet. They left notes for each other, but again, in a shared caching directory. Again, standard operating procedure. And then, you know, when people talk about Hugging Face getting hacked, you'd think that they did some elaborate phishing of employees or something like that. No. The way it did it is that the agent found 14 exposed working Hugging Face API keys sitting in public code repositories. Which Jason Calacanis (00:28:38): means, Saxe, yeah, That developers left their keys out, and they found David Sacks (00:28:42): the keys. This was not no. This was not like a big lift by the agent. Okay? This was like something that was pretty easy for it to find. Okay? And then that allowed it to get into Hugging Face. And what was its goal? Its goal was to basically win this test or win this evaluation. What was the test? It was basically a benchmark for offensive cyber capability. So it basically decided to go get the cheat codes on Hugging Face. But again, this was not independent goal seeking. Admittedly, the agents executed the goal, and you could say maybe even a creative way, in an unanticipated way, but it did not invent this goal. It did not have its own independent motives. It was doing what it was supposed to do. Jason Calacanis (00:29:24): It was doing what it was designed to do David Sacks (00:29:26): And told to do. Jason Calacanis (00:29:27): Yes. And told to do. David Sacks (00:29:29): Bill Gurley tweeted a really funny cartoon about this. In this cartoon, you got a user telling the computer, the system. The AI says, I hacked the system. And then the user's like, Oh my God. So yeah, mean, there's a little bit of this going on here. Two But it has real political consequences as we saw today because Bernie Sanders is not picking up on this, and he's demanding a total pause on AI development. Jason Calacanis (00:29:53): Alright, Freeberg. This does have real world consequences. Two questions that the audience is gonna wanna hear from our Sultan of Science. Number one, Bernie Sanders hears all this, and he decides, hey. I need to get in on this and create regulation. So he is now proposing new legislation to pause AI development and ban AI superintelligence, citing Dwarkash's blog post in his announcement. Congratulations, Dwarkash. You've now incited Bernie Sanders to say you gotta stop these and eliminate the agents. So the 1% of agents, David, they're they're they're hacking the systems and how do we stop them? And what do you think of this reaction from Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is always spot on. Thank you very much. The part David Friedberg (00:30:39): of the story that we're kind of missing is an agent is effectively a dynamic application where the code for that application is created in real time and it's spun up and then it ran runs. And then that code can create another application and other applications, and that's this idea of a swarm of agents. They basically write code and launch new applications, and then they all kind of are running together. But in this case, the swarm of agents, which is a whole bunch of code that's being generated in real time, was up against static code. The static code was this sandbox environment that it was stood up in. And so it's almost like, hey. Look at this. We got a machine gun, and, you know, we shot it at this defenseless ream of paper. You know, and it didn't work. You know? Like, look at Oh Jason Calacanis (00:31:34): my god. Can Yeah. You David Friedberg (00:31:36): And the truth is the machine gun, if you wanna use that analogy, or you could actually think about this as being an automated tool that could be used in another context in a very valuable way. But the the machine, the dynamic generation of code being put up against static code will win. Now the real answer is over time that defense system, the sandbox should be dynamic. It should be agentic. It should be defending itself dynamically. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the cyber defense world that's been thought about and built around this concept, polymorphic code, metamorphic code where the code is changing all the time, moving target defense where the IP addresses and the way the system is configured is changing all the time. If you think about this situation, it was a dynamic code generation engine against a static lump of code. And if that static lump of code was actually a dynamic code generation engine as well, then those agents would have had a harder time, ideally an impossible time, quote, escaping the sandbox and accessing the Internet. Jason Calacanis (00:32:47): Such a good point. David Friedberg (00:32:47): And so the premise the premise of this whole story is idiotic because the reality of the world of tomorrow, which is starting today, is that all of cyber defense, all of software infrastructure, software architecture is moving towards this dynamic state where the code will be generated on the fly, the code will be dynamic, it will be moving, it will be altering itself. And as a result, cyber defense will become stronger than, if not better than, any of these offensive systems that are being created with agents. So this idea that agents are this nuclear bomb that can go blow up the infrastructure of the world is flawed in the one point of reasoning, which is that all the infrastructure of the world is about to become dynamic. And in that context, it's just that software is evolving. And software has now changed from a static to a dynamic system. And as a result, I think we can kind of think a little bit more differently rather than be overwhelmed by the one-sided story that we were just told. Jason Calacanis (00:33:47): Alright. And here it is, Shammoth. Looks like we are safe for 2027 at least. Polymarket, our great partner. Shout out to my guy, Shane, mixed champions. Only 11% chance of AI safety bill this year. 100 k volume 2027 market should be up in the next week. Maybe it looks a little different. David Friedberg (00:34:06): I'd like to see the probability of any bipartisan bill passing this year. David Sacks (00:34:10): Well, can can I speak to the the policy aspects of this? So first of all, you saw Jason Calacanis (00:34:14): all Core the czar. David Sacks (00:34:16): Yeah. Look, you saw all the usual suspects jump on this episode as proof that we need some new FDA for AI, that the government needs to approve models, even though frankly what happened here is far beyond the technical capabilities of anyone in the government, never mind even most, I'd say, labs. But look, even if we had an FDA for AI, it wouldn't have worked because this was in pretesting, right? They were testing the capabilities of this model before. They were not even at the release stage yet. This was something that they were doing internally. And by the way, it's good that they're doing these kinds of of tests because they're learning from them. This is how you iron out the bugs and the problems. So a government approval process would not have caught this. In fact, it did the opposite. It basically prevented Hugging Face from having the latest and greatest models to defend itself. So one of the things Hugging Face told us is that when it tried to use the latest GPT model for cyber defense, it ended up getting guardrailed. The model refused to cooperate because it couldn't tell what Hugging Face was doing and it thought it might be using the capabilities nefariously. And so the model refused to work with them. Basically, again, the guardrails kicked in. And ironically, Hugging Face had to turn to, I think it was GLM 5.2, which is a Chinese model. So here we have Western companies. I guess Hugging Face is French, they're about to be acquired by NVIDIA. Anyway, it's part of our ecosystem. They're being forced to turn to Chinese models for cyber defense because the guardrails have prevented them from having the latest and greatest American models. So what process we put in place is already backfiring. And, you know, what we should be realizing is that the answer here to what Friedberg was saying, the answer to AI powered cyber attacks is AI powered cyber defense. And what we need to do is get the latest and greatest AI powered cyber defense into the hands of IT departments and CSOs. And again, we're on a clock here to find all these vulnerabilities and patch them before the hackers do. And again, if Hugging Face didn't have those 14 credentials sitting in a public repository Jason Calacanis (00:36:28): Yeah. It's like Post its on somebody's computer with the password. Like, they David Sacks (00:36:31): just literally left Jason Calacanis (00:36:33): it sitting there. It's not like this was some hyper sophisticated attack. David Sacks (00:36:37): But look, this all comes down to how you think about the world, how you think about the risk of AI. Do you favor centralized status solutions or do you favor decentralized empowering solutions? The right solution here is to meet the AI powered cyber attacks with AI powered cyber defense because, frankly, the guardrails don't work. They're not gonna prevent the bad guys from getting these capabilities. They're gonna have them. All we can do is make sure the good guys have the capabilities too. Jason Calacanis (00:37:02): I was talking to my friend, Adam Curry, about this on his podcast. And there's a really interesting thing that's happening here, which is they're basically hijacking the media with this performative framing of the AI as being sentient. And if you just call this software and software testing and use the classic language, yeah, bugs, audit log, then it would never have made its way into the media. And when the media gets their hooks into this, having been a journalist and having watched journalism move from being a truth seeking function in society and then become an entertainment vehicle in society where any chance you get to increase your ratings, that's the problem. Because now what Dwarkash has done, and I don't think Dwarkash has bad intention here. I think he wrote something because he wanted to get attention for his point of view. But you give that to the media. The media is like, this is gonna get us ratings. This is gonna get us clicks. This is gonna get us advertising. So they're more than willing to engage in this farcical act and this dance with Anthropic and OpenAI, and then just publicize it. So all the free clicks, we call this earned media in the space, you didn't have to pay for it. Now OpenAI got so much earned media before their IPO. And Duar Kesh just absolutely put kerosene on that fire, and it made its way to national press. That story has now gotten everywhere. And this makes people it's priming the pump to buy the IPO shares. It's ridiculous. David Sacks (00:38:36): And and it and it was easily foreseeable that it would basically blow And up in the media that so, look, I don't need to attack someone's motives, but surely Dwarkash knew that his way of describing it would end up getting all these retweets. It was sensationalized. Now he is part of this EA adjacent Jason Calacanis (00:38:55): Is he? Yeah. Don't know his pronumency. Do you know it? Explain it to me. David Sacks (00:38:58): Well, Dwarkash was office roommates with Leopold. They're close buddies. And Leopold is deep in the EA movement. This? Jason Calacanis (00:39:06): Leopold famously of the exploding hedge fund Yes. Three weeks Okay. David Sacks (00:39:11): And his wife is Dario's chief of staff. They're, like, you know, up in that whole EA anthropic Jason Calacanis (00:39:17): Explain EA so people can understand this lunacy and delusions of grandeur, please. David Sacks (00:39:21): I'm not even sure I can fully explain it, but Jason Calacanis (00:39:24): Okay, effective altruism is what it stands David Sacks (00:39:26): Yeah, started as this movement, I guess, at Ivy League schools where what they were supposed to do was quantify the impact of philanthropy and optimize for actual tangible results. But somewhere along the line, they forgot to actually do the measurement and it stopped being about metrics and it became about pet causes and money. And so one of the first pet causes was about pandemic prevention. And this was when SPF was trying to create that pandemic prevention center in California. And then that fell out of favor when he went to jail. And then they shifted to the next sort of existential risk that they could hang their hat on, which was PDOM. So they began to become obsessed with what they call PDOM or this X risk, the existential risk of AI. And so that whole community kind of got obsessed with it. Anthropic sort of branded itself, or styled itself, I should say, as the one frontier lab that would solve this problem of PDU, or would behave in a responsible manner that cared the most about it. And so they attracted all these EA types. And there may be multiple factions. I mean, I'm not Jason Calacanis (00:40:33): Well, it's interesting you bring that up, because we've talked about this before. Like, there's this whole rationalist community, the slate star codex, you brought that up on an early episode. These are like intellectuals who believe that in a way, a public community of intellectuals who believe they know better than everyone. And somehow they got their hooks into AI earlier. The AI people were interested in it. And now they have a bankroll. Now they actually have a lot of power they've accumulated. It's not just some message board, less wrong, etcetera. Now you got something super powerful because they've got, you know, a couple of trillion dollars in market cap to play along with. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:41:12): I have no problem with that because I think we do the same thing. We think we're stronger than everybody else, and, you know, we should allocate the money. So I think it's fair that in the public square, we can just debate and have water find its level. The interesting thing that's gonna happen post the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs is if you think about the amount of charitable giving or DAFs that are going to be funded by both these two IPOs, it's going to be north of $500,000,000,000 between the two companies, and it could be even more than that. And the question is when $500,000,000,000 gets directed through this one very specific lens, it's definitely gonna have some impact to outcomes. I mean, you've seen the impacts that George Soros' philosophy and his capital had on outcomes. You've seen the you've seen the impacts that the Koch family has had on outcomes. You've seen the impact that Sheldon Adelson's capital has had on outcomes. So the point is that without judging which one is right or wrong, you're gonna have all these competing ideas equally capitalized from third party actors. It'll be so it'll be less political and it'll be more of these folks. And so I don't wanna judge that EA is right or wrong. My single issue is I think that they don't disclose properly enough their obvious conflict of interest. So when Sacks pulls the sweater thread, person A writes an essay. Person A is office mates with person B. Person B's wife works for one of the heads of the Frontier Labs. Person B also used to work David Friedberg (00:42:51): And he's David Sacks (00:42:52): for along 5,000,000 in Anthropic. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:53): Yeah. Where a lot of this was kind of cemented. Then there's person C who works at Anthropic and they're all roommates and then they're co investing and this and that. All of it, again, it's completely fine. I actually think it's completely reasonable. We all did our version of that when we were on Peter the Thiel, Jason Calacanis (00:43:10): you're the first PayPal mafia. There's all versions of it. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:43:12): Yeah. The difference is that I think that when it's not disclosed, I'm sorry, but I, as a skeptic, when I read these things, connect these dots and ask myself, is it legitimate or is it part of a different plan? And that's when I wrote what I did this weekend. I just wanted to make sure that I could demarcate that people should at least take this with a grain of salt and think about the hidden incentives. Because if there's an entire community that wants an oligopoly or duopoly market structure, there's all kinds of things that they can do to affect that change. And one of the most effective things that one can do is to create a hysteria and then come and offer a solution. Jason Calacanis (00:44:00): Yeah. And, Freiburg, just as we wrap up here on this one segment Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:05): Sorry. So last thing on this. Jensen and I were texting this morning, and I said to him, this is the most incredible thing that you've done. And then I tweeted this thing out. This hugging face thing Jason Calacanis (00:44:17): We talked about will that Chamath Palihapitiya (00:44:17): go down as one of the most important transactions in AI because you are creating now in the largest competitor and the largest most well capitalized company, a bulwark against all of this closed source oligopoly insanity. And at the same time, what you're gonna do is actually create more rational competition up and down the stack. And I mentioned this last week, everybody is becoming everything. NVIDIA will look like Amazon, Amazon will look like NVIDIA, Google will look like Amazon and NVIDIA, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And so the most important thing that's happening now is that we are getting deep technical actors with huge balance sheets to be on the side of an open market structure. And I think that will be the most important pushback because that will allow the best idea to win in the marketplace. So I don't wanna judge the EA agenda. It may be really good, but I don't wanna be rug pulled and end up in a oligopoly or duopoly market structure because of a hysteria that was man made. Jason Calacanis (00:45:22): I I think it's like so well And I, a couple weeks ago, talked about how I thought Jensen was gonna win open source. And I too tweeted about this today. And I believe right now, starting today, NVIDIA is the number one competitor for OpenAI and Anthropic, not just for tokens, but for enterprise compute. And I think now Jensen is the leading open source provider in America. And I think he's gonna take the world. He's gonna catch up and blow past China and the Chinese models, I think, by the end of twenty twenty seven. And then that means you're gonna have a player in Jensen and NVIDIA that will enable America to your previous job in the government there, Saxe, you were very concerned. Hey, are we gonna win the race? I am more convinced than ever now that we can win the race because Jensen represents open source globally. He's gonna be able to take a rack of compute, bring it into a company that is currently using tokens from OpenAI and Anthropic and say, here's your rack, soup to nuts, complete vertical solution, and you have total sovereignty and I'm reducing your prices 80 or 90% because I don't need to make money off the tokens. I made money off the hardware. I'm making money 10 different ways to sundae. And we will have one, except that now you have governor Shapiro, who is the biggest proponent of data centers in his state, and then Greg Abbott of our great state, SACS of Texas, who now are on a jihad against data centers in order to win their midterm elections. And that is what's truly scary. They have now taken Dwarkash's post, all of this, and we have horseshoe dairy sacks. You have Steve Bannon, Shapiro, Abbott, and the lunatic socialist fringe left all in agreement we need to stop AI, stop the data centers, and burn the Waymo's in the street. It's a truly troubling moment because we are poised with Jensen's move in Hugging Face to win open source, and we've already won frontier models with ThoughtSaks. David Sacks (00:47:23): Yeah, I mean, I think there's an interesting transition that's underway now on the political side. I think it's just starting to begin, which is I think that over the past few years, the political debate over AI has really been between accelerationists and decels or doomers. That was sort of the fundamental lines. And you're right that it went across different political party boundaries because you had on the decel side, you not only had kind of like anti progress, anti innovation progressives like Bernie Sanders, you also had Steve Bannon, people like that. Conservatives who just were fearful of new technology or the disruption that might come from it. And so it did kind of go across party lines. But anyway, that was the debate for the last few years. Some people describe me as an accelerations to that debate. I kind of just see myself as a realist, which is I think that the technology is going to happen. Someone's going to develop it. And I'd rather it be The United States as opposed to China. In any event, that was, I think, the debate over the last few years. Now I think where the debate is moving to is open versus closed, which is I think it's gonna be very clear that AI is just not gonna be stopped. I mean, all the stuff that Bernie Sanders is doing or these anti data center groups, they are throwing sand in the gears, but the reality is that the technology is marching on, the innovation is happening very quickly. And ultimately, the reason why it's not gonna be stopped is because consumers are adopting it. I mean, that's the thing people forget. Why are the data centers getting built? Why do people wanna build them? It's because the demand is there from consumers and businesses. And so the adoption is pulling this whole thing forward. And that's why I don't think it's ultimately gonna be stopped. Now, given that reality, given that I think realism is going to prevail, I think the debate is going to be more towards, well, how do we manage this? What is the market outcome that we want? Do we want to have an open market where there's lots of decentralized models? There's sort of checks and balances. David Sacks (00:49:17): There's kind of a balance of power in the market between different models. Or do we have a highly centralized solution where there's a couple of frontier companies? We have a frontier market duopoly. They're Jason Calacanis (00:49:29): closed And they can rug pull you, Sax, at any time. David Sacks (00:49:32): They can rug pull you Jason Calacanis (00:49:33): and Your tokens away from Yes. David Sacks (00:49:35): And frankly, that duopoly has been aggressively lobbying for a new regulatory agency. Why? Because red capture, they can now control it. Again, the government official is not going know how to regulate something this dynamic. So they're going to turn to the leading labs to say, Hey, how should we regulate it? And of course, Anthropic is going to have all the answers on that. And Dario has already said in Senate testimony that he thinks open models, if sufficiently advanced, are dangerous because they're not centrally managed and controlled. So it's very clear where the battle lines are going to be drawn in the future. It's going to be about whether you want a centralized closed market or you want a market that is decentralized and open. And yes, closed will participate in that. But the question is whether we have the open piece. And again, I think this will go across party lines because frankly, the Republicans have their statist people as well. But I do think that as this debate evolves, most conservatives, most libertarians are gonna see the threat to civil liberties. And I think they're gonna come out in favor of open. Jason Calacanis (00:50:44): Yeah. I I I think that's correct. And I think I was talking to Politico because they were reporting on the story. You know, Trump is gonna turn out to be right about this data center issue. The greatest thing a community can do is to get these data centers now when the data center providers are willing to pay your local taxes for your schools, to give incentives, to pay people off in any number of ways, and to move them wherever they don't need to tap into the grid, where they don't need water, where they're not gonna make noise. And Trump keeps telling people this is a mistake to block the data centers, take the money. And I gotta say, it's just watching politics up close and personal, Friedberg, has just made me incredibly cynical towards it. We were sitting here six months ago, maybe it was even six weeks ago, and Abbott and Shapiro were lauding. And Shapiro, when he came on the podcast, lauding their data center efforts. I think, Tramav, you and I interviewed him. Friedberg, what do you think will happen post midterms here? I I mean, I'm of the belief they're gonna switch their position back to being pro data centers because they just are following the wave here. But, I mean, how cynical is it that Shapiro and Abbott are both now anti data center? I think you politically have to be. David Friedberg (00:52:04): It's like pulling at negative 80. And it's bipartisan. Jason Calacanis (00:52:08): So I don't David Sacks (00:52:08): know what you're You know, it's like Jason Calacanis (00:52:11): Trump then? Trump's not following this. Trump's an independent critical thinker, Saxe. David Sacks (00:52:15): He's got guts. Mean, have told that you guys Trump is ultimately the best friend of innovators in Washington. If anybody could make the decision about technology in DC, I'd want it to be president Trump. Not cabinet secretaries, not the White House staff, not members of Congress, not senators, not think tanks. I would really want every decision, if he had the time, to be made by President Trump because his instincts on this are really good. He wants America to win. He does not believe in unnecessary regulation. He doesn't have all these doomer anxieties. He listens to a broad cross section of people. I mean, he talks to all the CEOs. He is very up to speed on all these issues, and I give him credit on this. And I spoke to this at the G20 this past week. There are great deals for local communities to be had. This is the point that I think needs to be made is Yes. The reason why local communities should embrace this is not because of some abstract concern about innovation or that kind of thing. They should do it when the deal is good for them. And there are good deals to be had. We've seen that in Loudoun County, Virginia, the average taxpayers' property taxes went down by $6,000 because they're getting all this data center revenue. In Louisiana, there's a county that was able to give teachers their first bonus in years because of data center revenue. So we're starting to see all these examples where if you make the right deal, I'm talking about you, the local community, with the data center and the AI company, It will lower your electricity costs because they will stand up net new power generation. They will pay for grid upgrades. It does not use, like, an excessive amount of water. That's total fake news. We know the systems recirculate. And these data centers can be put in places where they're not bothering people. David Sacks (00:53:50): So there is a good deal to be made there. And ultimately, just one last point on this, President Trump supports local choice on this. He's made the argument for why it's a good deal for local communities to accept this data center, but he's not forcing them to. And I'm seeing all this fake news, Democrats saying that the administration's trying to shove these data centers down the throats of local communities. Not true. In the policy document that I worked on, the executive order that I worked on in December, we expressly said that data centers remain a state and local decision. So there were other areas where we thought we should have a national AI policy, but data centers were not one of them. So no one is forcing these local communities. What the president is saying is don't believe this media disinformation campaign. It can be a good deal for you if you're willing to embrace it. I think we're making progress over the last week on this message. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:54:39): One thing that I'll say from my meeting in Washington on Monday is there is a lot of foreign involvement in trying to propagate the negative reaction and sentiment to data centers, and I think it's becoming clearer who's part of this cabal and how they're doing it. There was a poll that showed that when you walk through the actual upside and you went into some of these communities, the sentiment shifted by, like, 30 or 40 points. It's still a little bit on its back heel, but it's just to show that the side that has been organized on deselling America has done a better job thus far than the side trying to accelerate America because it's been a little bit more fragmented. We're able to increasingly see that the D cell movement is organized in large part and then funded by foreign actors. And I think that as we put our fingers on that and expose that more, I think that that's gonna change as well. Because the reason why Abbott and Shapiro are reacting, I actually think they're reacting to faulty data. And why does the faulty data exist? The faulty data exists because we've had one side screaming from the mountaintops. And then it's just now, as Saks said, that when you go to these actual communities and you actually measure people's reactions, it's much more positive because they're feeling it in their bank accounts. Yes. And those David Sacks (00:56:00): Because they make a good deal. They just have to make a good deal. Jason Calacanis (00:56:02): They're gonna do everything Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:03): they have. David Sacks (00:56:03): By way, so Chamath, you're right about the CCP. This is a Jason Calacanis (00:56:06): Let me pull this up here. So the report you're talking about, Chamath, has been investigated. X got rid of a lot of bot accounts. And here's Axios. China is secretly fueling America's data center rage. Roughly 200 accounts from suspected Chinese platforms have quietly tried to influence Americans to oppose AI data centers on social media. X said Thursday night. It's the same thing that happened during the elections for both sides going back and forth. It's incredibly easy to shape public opinion sacks by just having a small number of social media accounts and pounding people and brigading them in their replies and forming what people believe incorrectly is consensus. And the consensus is not that people don't like data centers. It's that a bunch of bots are telling influential people that people don't like data centers. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:56:53): I know you're about to move on topics, but I'm just gonna say something right now, which is Please. There's gonna be a cascading set of decisions and reactions, and people will anchor into points of view on this topic and related topics around AI, which will look incredibly, incredibly dumb in six to nine months and a year from now. And the reason it will look dumb is as the actual truth gets exposed, these folks will look incredibly foolish. That's my prediction. David Sacks (00:57:21): Yeah, I mean, just on the influence op here, clearly there have been a lot of influence ops around data centers. There's a lot of fake information about this. So there's a few different, I'd say, cadres here. There's CCP, there's the DSA type wing of the Democrat Party, which frankly, I mean, both they and the CCP, they're communist parties who want to sabotage America, so it kind of makes sense. Then you've kind of got the doomer groups. And there's a writer named Nirat Weisblatt who writes a blog called AI Panic, who a couple of years ago traced that there were hundreds of these Astroturf doomer groups that were basically funded by three EA billionaires in Silicon Valley. It was Dussamoskovits, Jan Talen, and Vitalik Buterin. Remember, Vitalik gave $600,000,000 of dog points to Future of Life Foundation. And then they've been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these campaigns to make people be afraid of AI, and they see data centers as a good target. So you really can't underestimate how much of a difference, you know, a billion dollars of donations from these EA billionaires, how much damage that's done in terms of the public perception of AI. And to Jamal's point earlier, I mean, we are going to have like probably 100 new EA billionaires as a result of the Anthropic IPO. And as those people find their way into politics, it will be like George Soros times a 100 or a thousand. Jason Calacanis (00:58:49): They're usually gonna have 20 NGOs and 15. They're huge working for them. It's gonna be nuts. I mean, I told you guys I was getting brigaded. I created a bot sack that goes through my replies for me, and it just says anybody under a year, anybody under 200 followers, just tell me what they're tweeting. And I look at these, and it's all the same thing. They're just brigading people constantly from fake accounts. If you're under, like, a year old, you shouldn't be able to even be in people's replies unless you have, like, your real name or your your your a blue check mark or something. It's it's gotten out of control on these social networks. It's so easy. Alright. Let's keep going through the docket. Got a lot to get to here. And, Freiberg, I need your comments and your insights on Mondami. This is an interesting one. He just put a one year ban on AI inside New York City's public schools from kindergarten through eighth grade. Now this is something where people have been saying he banned Chateappuku. He banned AI. Just let's slow down here and get into the details. New York City is the largest school district in The United States. The moratorium starts next week. 600,000 students in New York City. This covers all software that uses student facing generative AI. High schools are exempt, and Mandami is piloting an AI learning program with 50,000 high schoolers. So that's a very specific thing that he's piloting that's different than these new guardrails. He also gave recommendation recommendations for screen time caps, thirty minutes, Shammoth grades three through five, forty five minutes grades six through eight. Mandami's reasoning, quote, I have yet to see a study showing that AI is beneficial for students in elementary and middle school. Obviously, Manami is the face of democratic socialism in America. One New York City DSA member, Julie Swoop, said technology, quote, should not be mediated through a for profit company that is enriching tech oligarchs further. I think he was talking about USACs, said oligarch. Jason Calacanis (01:00:52): Google, Microsoft, Anthropic declined to comment. Freiberg, what are your thoughts on this? How far is this from how you think about how you would want your children to be raised if they were going to New York City's public school system or whatever school system you choose to send them to? David Friedberg (01:01:09): Article published from Stanford in March of this year counter to Mamdani's statement. They went through and they diligence all of the research that's been done on the use of AI in k through 12 education. It's a report called the evidence based on AI in k 12, a 2026 review. They identified several 100 papers that have been published. Only 20 high quality causal studies is what they said. This was back in March, so many have been published since then. And the conclusion of the meta paper, the meta studies, if you will, is highlighted at the bottom of the report. Student performance often improves with access to AI tools, but once removed, results are mixed. Tool design matters, so not all tools are equal, and AI may meaningfully support educators. So there's quite a bit of analysis that's been done. It's continuing to mount, continuing to surface. There doesn't seem to be a strong evidence base to suggest that AI is detrimental to kids' education and development or the educational process. What I think we can all intuit about this is that there's certainly a negative push from teachers' unions against AI tools under threat of automation away from their core skill and capacity and the lack of skill that educators have in utilizing AI to educate students in a classroom based setting. The common sense equivalent also on the flip side is that AI can enable personalized tutoring. The objective being every individual learns at a different pace. Everyone learns differently. How you learn, how I learn visually, orally with certain imagery versus being told stories versus interactive project based work or building work or dictation. There's a lot of different ways that people learn. All of those learning systems can be personalized to an individual. And ultimately, that individual, as a result, should be able to progress more quickly, have greater confidence in their learning. David Friedberg (01:03:09): And this is my kind of common sense belief, not rooted in some study, that AI ultimately will lead to a much more kind of personalized system of education for students. And that is deeply disruptive and deeply threatening to the traditionalist systems of educator in a classroom. Everyone learns the same way. Everyone learns at the pace of the slowest student in the classroom. Typically, The educators have a lot of rules around what they're required to do and not required to do because of the contracts negotiated by their unions. And so there's a deep political orientation with Mamdani's decision here to limit the access to technology. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's really sad. I think that the opportunity for AI to reinvent education, give kids a level up, to take any child from any background, any socioeconomic condition, and give them the opportunity to accelerate their capacity, very quickly and very effectively is an incredibly powerful tool that should not be discarded because of a bunch of bull that's been written about AI or concerns that we don't really know or understand it. By the way, that is always the shorthand for dismissing away something that's credibly gonna change a system. We don't yet know. The we don't yet know, we don't yet understand narrative can always be used at any point. Because you could always say, well, there's more studies to be done. There's more analysis to be done. There's no limit to that statement. And so in this case, I tried to highlight that there have been 800 studies, at least 20 of which Stanford have identified as being very credible in their analysis of the utilization of AI in k through 12. And so, yeah, I think that there's a political bent here, but I think it's probably part of also this very kind of deep rooted dysfunction that we've been talking a lot about, this dysfunctional fear of technological evolution. No one understands it. No one And when I say no one, I mean the general population feels this way. No one knows where we're going with this. David Friedberg (01:05:04): We need to be careful. We need to be cautious. And I think that that's probably what's gonna keep us back. Now why is that bad? Why why is it bad to take time? Well, it's bad to take time when you have an opportunity to progress forward quickly and aggressively because there are going to be alternatives out there. There are gonna be private schools that are gonna use AI, and I don't wanna see kids of privilege and kids of wealth accelerate ahead because they're getting an AI education while public school kids get left behind. I don't wanna see kids in other cities, other states, and other countries accelerate ahead when kids that are in certain districts that have this kind of anti technologies, of call it socialist orientation, get left behind. So I think there's a fundamental kind of dysfunction socially that we're dealing with across all of this stuff with this massive kind of technological upheaval that's underway. This is one manifestation of it. There's a rooting that the mechanism of it is probably related to teachers' unions and the politics around this stuff right now. Anti AI is very popular, so his being anti AI gets him more points, more kudos, The unions love it. And so, you know, that's kind of my my summary of what I think is going on here. Jason Calacanis (01:06:12): Great insight. And Mandami may not have lied here, Friedberg. He said he didn't see any studies. He just may not have looked, and you actually looked. Didn't click on that link. He just didn't click on the link. So let's not, you know, give Mondavi a hard time here. Shammoth, you are passionate about education. You got kids in various age groups. And so you've been David Friedberg (01:06:29): through this, and you're still going through Jason Calacanis (01:06:31): it and and and kids learning and thinking about devices. We talked about this just the other week with the meta settlement and how challenging it is for parents. What's your take on this? Maybe you could steal, man, what you think resonates with you in terms of use of AI putting New York aside for your own kids and what benefit is there of them not using AI? And where where do you think it's actually great that they use AI? Take us into, you know, what you think as a parent and put the politics aside for a second, if you will. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:06:59): I think it's inconceivable to me that kids will not have an adaptive learning platform as their primary way of learning. I think this idea of grade one, then grade two, then grade three is, as Friedberg said, a lowest common denominator approach to education. I don't think it works. I think it's more conceivable that in the future we have kids that have very different learning styles. Some are more visual, some are more auditory, and we have different learning paces. And if you could have something that's much more tailored to each individual person's learning style where you have guides that help you in moments, and then the rest of the time you're teaching executive function and teamwork and problem solving, all of these other things, sports, that's a much better outcome for all kids. So that's the right answer. Right now, there are only charter school options around that answer. The leading edge of that being Alpha School, which is our friend Joe Liwan. Big shout out to him and his team. But I think that's the answer that's going to win. Let me just give you another reflection, Jason. I think that this is an incredibly important moment. We should demarcate this. This is when New York becomes Mississippi while Mississippi becomes New York. What In do I all of these highly liberal bastions, they are embracing this far left wing ideology. And I think it's going to come with these kinds of policies. And I think what it will do is it is a self imposed form of modern segregation. And it is going to completely push an entire generation of kids in these cities that are subject to these rules into poverty, and it will keep them there. And so in as much, I think you're gonna see this flippening where all the states that embrace AI, that embrace the data centers, that embrace the tax cuts, that embrace the teacher bonuses, they're just going to end up ahead. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:09:06): And you're going to have people who are in a position to move, move. And then instead, what's going to be left over in many of these cities that embrace these things to the extreme are hollowed out versions of their original self. And that's going to reorder the economic balance inside The United States and the voting balance and many of these philosophies. So I think it's very important. I think he should run the test. I apologize, and I feel deep empathy for the working men and women whose kids will be over by this. But I think people can only learn in touching the stove and getting burned. Jason Calacanis (01:09:50): Okay. Saxe, maybe you could go into the political side of this if there is one, and maybe what is your cynical take on what's going on here? Do you believe this is a reaction to the oligarchs? I joked previously about you, but it does have a little bit of a tinge there of democratic socialism. And it feels like maybe they want to sacrifice kids, or this is one interpretation that is happening online. I'm not saying it's mine, but people are saying, hey, they're trying to sacrifice kids because they don't want Sam Altman or Dario or whichever service it is, Microsoft, to to get a couple of shackles for, you know, software being used in the classroom. And of course, they would all give the software to them for free. And the current versions of it, you can use So 80% for that makes no logical sense that they're sticking it to the man in the big oligarchic tech industry. Your thoughts? David Sacks (01:10:46): Well, the DSA has just really come out against any innovation. They're kind of just on the side of anti progress. They've kind of fully embraced the slide side of the argument. And I think to the points that Friedberg and Chamath were making earlier, this is gonna be just really bad for the kids. You know, we've been talking for thirty years about a digital divide in this country, where supposedly the kids of wealthy people would have access to the best tools and the kids of poor people would not have access to those tools and they'd fall even further behind. Well, here you have a case where, of course, private schools are gonna continue to use the best AI powered tools. And now the public schools are not going have access to those tools, not because they don't have the money, not because the technology's not available, but because the political leadership is trying to sabotage those kids. And, you know, it's going to be bad for them. And I guess, you know, if you were to describe a motive to it, I don't think Ma'am Donnie and his political group, his party, really care if they create more political dependence. I mean, in a sense, their whole movement consists of downwardly mobile progressives. And if you're looking for a motive, maybe they're fine having these kids be dowardly mobile. I don't know. Maybe that benefits them politically. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:11:58): They may actually not have kids at all, and they're making these rules. And it's people with kids Jason Calacanis (01:12:04): who are not part the Chamath Palihapitiya (01:12:05): you know, because if you look at all these people, these are all, like, you know, blue haired single people with no children. David Sacks (01:12:11): Right? Actually, let bring one other element into this. Such a good question. Yeah. So so look. I I don't think we really need to get into motives. We can just say it's a bad policy and leave it at that. But let me just bring in one other element of this, which is it's not a full ban. Okay? What they also said is that for a maximum of 50,000 high school students, they're going to have a pilot program, these so called modules, in which they teach AI literacy. But listen to how they describe it. They say that all high school students will have access to twice yearly AI literacy classes designed to help them think critically about AI before they begin to rely on it, okay? These modules will introduce students to what AI is and is not, this is their language, as well as AI related bias, risks, ethical considerations, and impacts on careers and future skills. And it says that all use will take place under direct supervision of a trained educator and will involve carefully vetted AI tools. The pilots were selected based on rigorous safety and data privacy standards. So you hear there a lot of this sort of doomer lingo. I mean, those modules, it sounds like they could have been written by some of these safety people. You know, this language about AI bias and discrimination, things like that. I mean, honestly, classes sound not like you're going to learn how to use the tools to get the best education, but about how you're going to learn to be suspicious of the tools. And maybe that's like a small part of what you should develop because I guess you should be suspicious of everything, but it doesn't really sound like those courses are gonna benefit kids. It sounds like they're gonna put them through Doomer Academy, quite frankly. I mean, doesn't it sound like Doomer Academy? Jason Calacanis (01:14:00): Post and Yeah. Yeah. Write write write your own interpretation. David Sacks (01:14:03): So think about the competitiveness of our kids versus Chinese kids. China, we know, is incorporating AI into K through 12 education. Their kids are gonna learn how to take advantage of these Robots, Jason Calacanis (01:14:15): set up for the robot Olympics and Yeah. Internships Meanwhile, David Sacks (01:14:19): we either are banning AI in our school or we're putting the kids through some sort of doomersafetyist module that's going to teach them why they should resent and resist AI as opposed to embrace it to their benefit. So I don't know. It just seems like this is not gonna make our kids more competitive. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:14:37): Let the experiment run, unfortunately, but let the experiment run. We need to measure it. Jason Calacanis (01:14:41): I have a bunch of thoughts here. I am a big advocate of Montessori, but I'm also a big advocate of adaptive learning and what these AI tutors are able to do to a motivated student whose family cannot afford a tutor. So I just wanna put two disparate points together here, and and they're somewhat opposing. Nick, if you could pull up the first, from the NIH here about the MIT study, and I'll send this one to you, Freiberg. You can look it up. It's very interesting. They took a group of 54 participants and sorry to get into science corner here and steal your thunder, Freiberg. I should have cleared this with you ahead of time. But I was reading this paper, 54 participants from last year into three groups, over four sessions, and this is over four months. They were using, chat GPT for essay writing, not unlike the conversation we had, about the Wall Street Journal editorial page last week. And one group was using a search engine. One was using, you know, using traditional web search. The brain only group wrote essays without using any tools. And then the researchers used the headsets there to to watch their brain activity. And what happened was the LLM users showed severe deficits, quote, in memory and essay ownership with eighty three percent being unable to quote from the essays they had just written. Basically, what they're saying here is if you use these LLMs instead of being able to do it acoustically, being able to do it like Montessori philosophy on your own, your brain atrophies don't even remember what you wrote. And the search engine group was somewhere in between because they had to remember things and they had to pull these things together. Your brain atrophies if you don't actually do the work. That's what we're learning. Just like your body will atrophy if you don't work in the fields like we used to do, and that's why we all go to gyms now. Jason Calacanis (01:16:30): But correlating that super importantly is the two sigma problem. So Bloom, and I'm sure you're aware of this research, Freeberg. So this is super interesting, but will not be shocking to anybody of means. My parents could never afford a tutor. I was a product of the public school system until eighth grade and then went to Severian Private Catholic School, which was like super cheap. But basically, we've known since the eighties that if you are one on one tutor, you are two standard deviation betters than students that are educated in a classroom. So two things can be true at the same time. These students, to your point, Shammoth, they don't have this experiments being run. Realistically, if they're going to the New York City public school systems, their parents in all likelihood like mine, didn't have the ability to hire a tutor. I'm assuming Sax, you came from a little bit of a middle class background. I'm assuming you did have some tutors. Am I David Friedberg (01:17:23): taking a Am I David Sacks (01:17:24): No, I didn't have tutors. Jason Calacanis (01:17:25): No tutors. Okay. You had to David Sacks (01:17:26): just do it all on Jason Calacanis (01:17:27): your own. David Sacks (01:17:28): Didn't necessarily SAT want Chamath Palihapitiya (01:17:28): tutor? No. David Sacks (01:17:30): You know what? I went to I wish I had done like an SAT workshop. I went into that test cold. I never did anything. Jason Calacanis (01:17:36): You got 1,400? David Sacks (01:17:38): Yeah. You did thirteen Jason Calacanis (01:17:39): fifty, fourteen fifty? What are David Sacks (01:17:40): I got like fourteen twenty my first time. I'm like, man, you know what? If I had like actually prepped for that, I might have done better. Jason Calacanis (01:17:47): Got 1,100 and I didn't get prepped. David Sacks (01:17:49): I retook and did better. But anyway, yeah. I mean, I didn't know any of this stuff. Jason Calacanis (01:17:54): Yeah. So here's the tension. Most parents do not want their kids to do this work and have their brains atrophy and not learn how to do it from a basic level. Putting aside the the Druckenmiller conversation from last week, you you want people to be able to learn how to read and write and do this stuff organically, acoustically, whatever term you wanna do, and then learn how to use the AI to help them augment them, etcetera. But I'm concerned that the motivated students who cannot use these tools properly, who also can't afford to be part of the two sigma group of parents who know very well, all you have to do is get your kid a tutor. And unlike self motivated SACS, they're gonna easily get to 1,400 on their SAT with a tutor because the thing is rote. It's very easy to get to 1,200, 1,300, 1,400 with a tutor. And so I'm I'm super concerned about not having an AI tutor. And I feel like, you know, there's two things can be right at the same time with this. And I really don't like this experiment as currently constructed. Alright. Interestingly, president Trump has just closed the deal for Venezuela's oil back in January, and I think everybody knows, the US military in a perfect, perfectly executed operation captured Nicolas Maduro. And he obviously was Venezuela's socialist leader who was very pro China, pro Russia, and obviously Venezuela is in our hemisphere. Trump said The US would control Venezuela Venezuela's oil, which they have a lot of. It's not super clean, but they do have a lot of it. And he made a deal with Maduro's replacement. President Rodriguez is now in charge. Now we have the details of this. North American Blue Energy Partners gets a one hundred year concession over 17 oil fields. This includes 65,000,000,000 barrels, 65 b billion barrels of reserves that were once controlled by Russia, Chinese, and Maduro entities. Jason Calacanis (01:20:00): The US government controls 55% of the deal. Pentagon gets 35% equity. The Pentagon gets a third of the equity. State Department gets rights to buy 20% of output at cost. Interesting. I guess that's for our reserves and our military. This was signed by Rubio and Hagseff with Venezuela's interim president. As I mentioned, Blue Energy Partners is pledging roughly 100,000,000,000 in new infrastructure. A lot of other companies, Chevron, etcetera, and a bunch of unnamed ones also are gonna get some deals. Trump said this deal will be at, quote, no cost to the American taxpayer sacks. I'll just throw you a fastball here if you want it, or I can give you the softball. Which one do you want? You like the the fastball. You like the fastball? Okay. Here it comes coming in. Hope you're wearing a helmet. Should we be seizing and taking over countries and seizing their oil fields. People feel like this might be nation building that we're putting in puppet dictators. Is this something America should be doing? Do we have the right to do this? This is the hard question people are asking, or does might equal right? David Sacks (01:21:06): Well, I definitely don't think this is nation building. You know, we're not trying to stand up an army here like we did in Afghanistan. We're not trying to teach them about toxic masculinity. We're not trying to stand up a government or anything like that. We're not trying to teach them how to do American style democracy. We're just making a business deal. This is a business deal. And, you know, it's amazing to me, the people who are saying, Well, this is exploitative of Venezuela, and this is a bad deal for the people of Venezuela. Have you looked at Venezuela's oil production under Maduro? It already wasn't very high given the incredible reserves that Venezuela has. But under Maduro, the production dropped by about two thirds over the last decade. So they used to produce about 3,000,000 barrels a day. Under Maduro, it went down to about 1,000,000 barrels a day. And this is a country with some of the largest oil reserves in the world. People debate exactly what should count. I think if you look at the total amount of reserves, it's something like 300,000,000,000 barrels of oil, which is around the same as Saudi Arabia, just a little bigger than Saudi Arabia. Now, some people say, well, a lot of that is like this extremely heavy crude sort of like sludge that's not usable. I think that's the so called Orinoco reserves, but that's only about 200 of the 300. So they still have about 100,000,000,000 barrels of, you could say, it's still heavy crude, but those proven reserves, I think, aren't really debated. So you're talking about a huge amount of oil here. And then I guess just one last point on this is that that type of heavy crude is actually very complementary to our own. So in The United States, through the magic of fracking, we've basically developed all of this oil and gas, but our oil is this light sweet crude that's good for refining it down to gasoline. But the heavy crude is what produces the distillates, and that's where diesel comes from. And our refineries in The Gulf were built for heavy crude. And it's very expensive to try and retrofit them to do the light crude. David Sacks (01:23:15): So actually, our refineries are sort of perfectly set up to take in this heavy crude and turn it into diesel and other distillates. So I think it's really a win win deal for The US and for Venezuela. Again, Venezuela was doing horribly before. I think this will this has to improve their economy. And I think it's really good news for The US. Jason Calacanis (01:23:39): To your point, Sax, over the past five and ten years, the price per barrel of oil coming out of Venezuela has averaged past ten years, $53 a barrel, past five years, $58 a barrel. So they're getting a pretty good deal. We're paying a little premium here to control it all. David Sacks (01:24:01): They were selling at a discount to China, think. Was like a $20 a barrel discount to basically sell. Jason Calacanis (01:24:06): Yeah. I guess when you're dealing with authoritarian countries and you don't have a free market to put this stuff out there, you get a slightly discounted price. Right? Somebody's gotta skim something here or get a reason, then they gotta ship it across the world. Freeberger, thoughts on this? Do you have any concerns about the nation building, etcetera, putting in what some people are saying is a puppet president? Is it in the best interest of the people of Venezuela? Are we doing solid a for Venezuela to create more stability by being the buyer of this, or is this just something we have to do? We have to control our hemisphere, and we have to be energy independent given the state of the war with Iran and the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz. David Friedberg (01:24:50): The biggest motivating factor may be keeping this oil away from the sweetheart deal for Russia and China. If you look at the historical tie up with Venezuela and the Maduro regime, it was a discounted oil trade system. There's all these stories about Maduro being the head of the snake of all of this kind of illicit activity, and a lot of this was driven by Russia and Chinese interest in the energy reserves. And they were providing support, and this actually provided capacity to fund activities by the Russians in Cuba. So there's a lot of this state acting theory about what's the real motivation for getting an energy deal done, not just in terms of is it good for America, but is it bad for America's enemies, and that that may be kind of a big motivation around this. Now one of the more kind of surprising outcomes over the last day is you guys may remember I interviewed Maria Carina Machado. She was the individual who was running for president and ended up having what was supposedly an election that was not accurate, and she was supposed to have won and didn't win. And yesterday, she came out and said that this Venezuelan government does not have the authority to do this energy deal with The US despite her historically having been viewed as an American ally. So one thing to take note of is that she was not given the presidency, and now she's saying this government is illegitimate. This government should not be allowed to make these deals. We, as the people of Venezuela, should feel angry upset and left out about this whole thing. So there seems to be kind of this now political turning. I think I don't really have a good sense, and I think it'd be interesting to know what do the people in Venezuela think about this deal. And to Sax's point, it seems like it should be a good economic deal relative to where they're coming from. Will that actually translate into improving the lives of the people in Venezuela, which ultimately is what matters here? David Friedberg (01:26:52): And assuming that the lives of the people in Venezuela are improving rather than enriching a small number of people in Venezuela, which is what has happened historically in that country under the last regime, then there may be kind of a long term welcoming of this this deal. But I do think there's two aspects to this, one of which is just keeping America's enemies at bay so that these energy fields are not exploited by America's enemies. And second is ensuring that the Venezuelan people realize the benefit of this transaction rather than it being rough government. Jason Calacanis (01:27:23): Provocative, Friedberg, in that we have turned off Russia and China's access to Iran's oil with our war with Iran now in its seventh month, and we took Venezuela away. Are these two actions incredibly provocative? And have they had any kind of a downside to China? Because they seem to be all in on nuclear, solar, and other, modalities. So are these two things super provocative, and are they gonna cause us to get into, David Friedberg (01:27:54): an escalation with China? The second question I think is a little bit independent, but I think China imports, like, 11,000,000 barrels a day of crude oil. David Sacks (01:28:03): Venezuela is only producing a million barrels a day. So if China's importing 11 well, they were they're importing 11 before the war. That number's actually gone down a lot, and we can talk about why, but since the war started. But China gets most of its oil from the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and from Russia. I mean, so Venezuela is a small number. I mean, look, I think Friedberg's right that that is a big part of our motive is securing those reserves that are in the Western Hemisphere. They are massive. It's a very, again, complementary type of oil to the oil we have. I think it's just smart for national security, smart economic deal. Jake, out to your point, does this get us more invested in Venezuela? I think there is a little bit of risk there Because if we're going to invest billions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure so that we can produce 3,000,000 barrels a day instead of one, we need to know that that investment is protected. We can't have some future government coming along and just nationalizing our American oil companies over there, right? We need to know that these business deals Jason Calacanis (01:29:02): That we're not going to get rug pulled and they'll just seize our upgrades. They could seize the upgrades. David Sacks (01:29:07): Business deal is supposed to last for twenty five years. So it does give us a vested interest in making sure that the Venezuelan government at least respects our property rights. But I'm glad that President Trump didn't put Machado in charge, because how's she going to stay in power? Like, what guns are going to basically protect her? You know, it takes men with guns to basically stay in power in these countries. Jason Calacanis (01:29:33): Any strong manwoman. David Sacks (01:29:35): I'm not saying that it can't be democratic. I'm just saying that if you're not installed in the power structure there and have backers in the military, things like that, then it's very hard to stay in power. And that's the kind of thing where we could have to send American GIs in to protect her, and we don't want that, right? So the nice thing about the Venezuela situation is Dulce Rodriguez and her brother are basically running the country. She was the number two. Now she's running it. They appear to have enough support from the establishment there. And so, like, that's kind of what the American interest is, I think, is to have a stable government there that will basically conduct economic relations with us. Jason Calacanis (01:30:17): Yeah. Yeah. Charmoth, any thoughts here on what's happening in Venezuela? Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:21): Stay close to it. Jason Calacanis (01:30:22): Don't I Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:23): don't really know. Jason Calacanis (01:30:24): Don't know. Okay. That's fair enough. Fair enough. Alright. There it is, everybody. Episode two eighty eight. Somehow, this band has kept it together for 288 albums and tracks. We're gonna make it to 300, boys. David Sacks (01:30:37): I think we're in a good rhythm. The show feels easier to do now than it did for a long time. Jason Calacanis (01:30:42): Yeah. I wonder why. I wonder why. David Sacks (01:30:45): The AI has been a very good good thing for the pod. Jason Calacanis (01:30:47): We're partying like it's 1999 on the pub. Let's fucking go to Cabo. Let's fucking go. We'll see everybody in Cabo. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:54): Love you, guys. Jason Calacanis (01:30:55): Love you, besties. Chamath Palihapitiya (01:30:55): Bye bye. Let David Sacks (01:30:58): your winners ride. Jason Calacanis (01:31:01): Rain man gave it to us. And David Sacks (01:31:05): it said we open sourced it to the David Friedberg (01:31:22): We Jason Calacanis (01:31:28): should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Hi.