Anthropic IPO at Risk, Meta's Muse Pop, Token Prices Fall, Open Source Gains Share, Alignment Fails

25:58Your thoughts on what's happening here with these models? Have you started playing with it? Because you were originally a technologist. Have you loaded these models on your computer? Because I'm playing with it on my MacBook Pro, and it's awesome.

26:10Jason Calacanis:Let me maybe give you the answer by explaining something. So I think what we're seeing is that these models are converging and clustering, which is to say that they're now within margin of error. And so the thing is, there's so many of these models that are roughly the same at different price points. So where is the edge? There's still edge. And the edge is in the harness that you use to wrap the model. So if you think about it as like, you have a model, that's like a brain, but you need to embody that brain with arms and legs and hands and eyes to do work. That's how you agentify a model, okay?

26:47Jason Calacanis:And you make it agentic. That's what that phrase means. And there are all kinds of different harnesses that the industry has invented to make these models more agentic. And there's still a lot of edge there. So at 8090, we have a labs function, and we've been ripping and teasing apart all the different models with all the different harnesses just to see how they perform. And they're a wildly variant in terms of cost and quality. So just to kind of build on Freebrook's point, you have the models that are converging, the harnesses are wildly different, and so their performance is all over the map.

27:21Jason Calacanis:And so now companies and people have to sort of navigate, what are you willing to pay for? I sent this tweet to Nick, if you can just put it up here. And I don't know if this is instructive or accurate, but what this shows, and this is the case for Ant, but it's probably the case for a lot of the closed models, is you're starting to see this massive revenue concentration, which is a few folks consume all of the highest and most expensive tokens. And I think if you take what Freeburg just showed to its logical conclusion, those folks at the top of this table are going to be under a lot of internal pressure, whether it's from their finance teams, or whether it's from their CFO, or it's going to be from shareholders to explain why as this clustering happens, they are not moving down to cheaper and cheaper models.

28:12Jason Calacanis:Now, you may choose to go down to cheaper and cheaper Ant models, so then Ant keeps the revenue. But there's also risk that you may do what Freeburg just said, and just go to an open source model and just host it yourself. So we're in like a very complicated part of the cycle, which is the first version of the AI trade was relatively simple, which is you're just selling tokens, you're wrapping the tokens, you're passing it through, and there was enough disparity that there was value. I think that that's going away. It'll force OpenAI and Ant to go up the stack. There is no choice. You can't sit there and serve a token that has diminishing value, because then all the subsequent value is getting absorbed and made by people wrapping your intelligence token, you will have to do that work.

29:01Jason Calacanis:And so Jason, that's why they will have to go and do cyber, they'll have to go and do law, they'll have to go and do customer support, all these things that we weren't sure whether they were going to compete. These trends may force them to do that. Yeah. And I think then that sets up a very interesting setup for their IPO. And just to back all that up, Saks, the Frontier Lab Corporations, Anthropic and OpenAI, They both released models this week at 50 % less token prices. And their IPOs are looking like they're both going to get delayed. Anthropic just targeting a$2 trillion valuation, OpenAI at$1.2 trillion.

29:42Sam already said OpenAI plans on doing 2027 over because of safety concerns. And Anthropic, which was supposed to file and go out in October, the report from the Wall Street Journal is that the IPO will happen in November or may be delayed even more. Here's your polymarket. Will Anthropical public in 2026 with our amazing partner, Polymarket? Shout out to my guy, Shane. Peaked at 96 % earlier this month that Anthropical will public this year, but now it's fallen to 76%. Is this like a cell phone here, Saks? The leading model companies need to go public to get capital to do their build out. And now they're delaying their own IPOs.

30:27Please explain how any of this makes sense. And if you were a major investor in one of these companies or on the board of them, what would you be doing or instructing these founders to do to get these companies to go public and get that capital they need to continue the AI build out? Oh, well, I think that we know from our friends that the investors in Anthropic are pulling out their hair about what's happening right now. Forget about the fake whistleblowers who were there for a few weeks and then left. You have current leadership in the company saying that there's a greater than 10 % chance of causing human extinction, and their own product is unsolved in this area.

31:08Think about the risk factors that's creating. How do you IPO with your own management of the company saying that? Then you've got, I think, other evidence of, I don't know what to call it except corporate schizophrenia. You've got Dario putting out this essay saying, we need to pace the frontier days before they launched Claude 5.5 and set a new frontier. I mean, he must know when he's writing this essay that they're about to release a product that will extend the frontier. So at a minimum, it's hypocritical, but maybe it's even worse than that. Then you have them publishing an essay about the bio risk associated with AI and how that needs to be stopped.

31:48And then meanwhile, they announced a new bio lab in San Francisco, a new wet lab. They started a lab after telling us that there's a 10 % chance of us all dying sacked. Let's just pause here for a second. Is this a dereliction of duty as the chief executive officer of Anthropic to sabotage your own IPO? You're supposed to be acting on behalf of your CEO of your shareholders. This to me seems like if we were the board, if the four of us were somehow matching the board of Anthropic, we would replace the CEO, we would put the CEO in the lab, and we'd find a CEO who knows how to run the company and not sabotage it.

32:31He's literally sabotaging his own company. I think there's an element of that. And I think investors are pretty nervous about giving the founders or Daria specifically super voting shares. There's a story and the information about that, that there's an active debate right now about whether to give them super voting shares. Explain what those are, please, and why in this context, this is critically important. Our audience may or may not know what those are. Supposedly, the founders of Anthropic only have about 2 % ownership each of the company, which in the grand scheme of things is a relatively low number relative to what other founders typically have at time of IPO.

33:06It'll still be an enormous amount of money, tens of billions of dollars. But that is the case. Super voting shares basically say it separates the economic shares from the voting shares in the company and gives certain people the right to control the company, even if they don't have the economic ownership that would usually be necessary. It's a pretty common thing. I mean, Larry and Sergey, I think maybe were the first prominent founders to get super voting shares in Google. It can be a stabilizing thing for the company because it means that as long as the founders are there overseeing things, they're not going to be subject to takeover attempts, things like that.

33:44But on the other hand, it requires a tremendous degree of trust in those founders because they effectively can't be removed no matter what they do. And you just have to wonder if in this case that's earned and warranted. I have to say that even for someone like me who isn't necessarily advocating for a lot more regulation, I kind of get nervous about the idea of Anthropic opening a wet lab in San Francisco. I mean, I was thinking about moving back and I don't know if I want to be. I mean, like, can you just put it a little further away? I think we've all seen this movie before. Yeah, offshore maybe.

34:18Put it on an oil ray or something.

34:21Jason Calacanis:What I would say is that if I were on the board, I would keep Dario as a CEO. and the reason is that he's clearly demonstrated that he can build a unique culture and position against the otherwise most formidable corporation competitor, which is OpenAI. He's done that and he's come from behind. I don't think you should undervalue how hard that is and what that takes. He's done that and he's built essentially the greatest business ramp in all time. I think the thing that I would probably do if I was on the board is fix what Sachs just said, which is there's now a bunch of incremental liquidity risk to the company.

35:01Jason Calacanis:And I think if you take the 20-year view of Anthropic, that corporation needs hundreds of billions of dollars to fulfill their ambitions. And I would solve for getting that as risklessly as possible. And I think there's only two things that you can do. The first is you have to throw everything in the kitchen sink into disclosures. The problem is that that will make what is an otherwise dense and impenetrable S1 even more dense and impenetrable. Okay, so you can kind of like superficially cover your regulatory risk. But the way that it actually gets translated in the market is you're just going to have to water down the expectations of the IPO sellers and create a much larger margin of safety for the IPO buyer.

35:48Jason Calacanis:And that's effectively how you find a market clearing price for this, Jason, which is to essentially say, and bear with me, I'm just giving out rough numbers, right? Even if you think that they're on$100 billion run rate, what would otherwise in a very clean sheet IPO maybe would have been a$2 trillion market cap. Now, you're at one or less. And the reason is the hedge funds and the pension systems and the long only mutual fund complexes who have a fiduciary responsibility to their sources of capital will justify all the risks by essentially asking for a lower and lower price. And I think that's what you're going to see.

36:31Jason Calacanis:I think you're going to see a much more moderate and reasonable IPO motion here. And it's probably going to clear at a much lower price than anybody thinks. And I do think that what SAC says is the reason why, but I think it's good for Ant because it clears all this noise. It forces them to just be a corporation and then run the business. And I think that they'll do great. look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried to recruit against Ant. I can't. It's impossible. The comp that they gave is incredible. The business ramp is so compelling. It's like, when you're in a head-to-head with these guys, I have not won a single bake-off for folks.

37:10Jason Calacanis:I wish I could say that I did, but I have not. And it's hard for a startup. So they are a magnet for talent. OpenAI is a magnet for talent, but these other risks are going to weigh on the IPO. And The only way to flush them is to just bring the price way down. Yeah, in Freeberg, when we look at the risk factors in an S-1, those are perfunctory. Those are disclaimers. Typically, you get the SpaceX one. Oh, what if Starship doesn't work? What if there's competition? It's kind of checkboxes. In Anthropics, I think we're going to be looking at something totally different, which is, hey, we and our employees are quitting saying this is going to kill humanity.

37:49We have massive regulation. We're asking for regulation. And by the way, we're doing biology work and we're launching a lab. So do you agree with Chamath here that the S1 is going to have an actual risk factors and disclaimers that are material against the IPO free burn? I think this customer concentration point ties to the earlier comments I made about the proliferation of incredibly performant open weight and open source models. And the reason is Anthropic puts out the best models for life sciences today. I run a life sciences R &D organization. We use their models. They're incredible. They're better than other models.

38:36And so we want to use them. When it comes to writing code, to writing software, to do internal workflows and run operations, we can use other products to write that code for us. And we do. And I think that that's likely the way the market is going to develop. And I think we're starting to see that proof come out in the market. And you're seeing it in this customer concentration point. Extremely high value, technical, engineering, math, life sciences, those really hard technical problems. You want to have these top tier, top shelf models, and you're going to pay a huge premium for them. And you're totally going to make money doing it, because the value is extraordinary.

39:16And this has always been my case about AI. AI is not so much about the value of replacing old stuff. 99 % of the value of AI is about enabling new stuff that's never been possible in human history. And I think that's where Anthropic and OpenAI are going to make their money. Separately, I think OpenAI is going to make a lot of money in consumer and Anthropic maybe to some extent as well. But in the enterprise setting, I think the money comes from creating new frontiers, discovering new enzymes, which Anthropic announced this week, that can cure human disease. and developing new technology, new engineering systems, making things that have never been possible to be made before.

39:54And I think that's the premium value and it's the premium price you'll pay for those closed models and that premium model. But that's a different business case than taking all of enterprise. Separately, I think most of the enterprise applications are going to be run using these open-weight models. And code is going to be written with cheaper models and so on. I don't know why you would go to a higher-end model to write code when you can do it for free and everyone in the organization can write code basically for free. And so I think Anthropik's bigger issue is this customer concentration question.

40:27And is it really a premium product that they're selling in the market? And that's where they take the market. That would be kind of where I think the market is headed right now. And it would be the biggest risk factor. This whole thing about, oh, it's going to end the world and whatnot. It's like, dude, just make sure your product doesn't end the world and you'll be fine. That would be a good first step here. Like Mark is doing a meta. I mean, it's an incredible company. The execution has been extraordinary. The ramp of revenue sacks has been extraordinary. But when you start to look at the impact of open source, we had a couple of viral charts come out.

41:0170-80 % of the token usage are those dark tokens I mentioned six months ago here on this pod that are not tracked, but some people can track them on routers. Those dark open source tokens are now the majority of tokens. Can I just give you a stat on that, J-Cal? Because what you just said is really important, but there's a stat that I think in the last 12 weeks alone, token use has flipped from 80-20 closed versus open to 80-20 open versus closed. I don't think we've ever seen a tidal wave of technology shift like this. In the history of all technology markets, we've never seen anything like this.

41:41And that is the biggest risk factor for Anthropic is they were first out the gate to get the enterprise on AI to build tools and whatnot. But as this market shifts to open source and open weights, boom, here it is right here. Look at this. This is the Verisal chart that went viral this week. So this is 12 weeks.

41:58Jason Calacanis:12 weeks? Oh my God. If you look at this chart, this I think is what blows the lid off the door on what needs to go into these S1s. And that's why I walked through all those open weight releases at the start of the show or this segment. It's not just that they're there, it's that they're proliferating now. There's so many more of them coming out. And the pace of improvement is extraordinary. And they're now in VLA for robotics. They're in image generation for image and video. So the open weight, open source models are now being used for all of the broader AI applications. The premium stuff, I will say, is still the best.

42:35Jason Calacanis:For narrow use cases. for engineering, for highly technical, highly complicated tasks and workflows and problems, solving Navier Stokes, solving mathematical problems, solving biology problems. That's where these models absolutely perform. And people will pay a premium of, I would say, close to infinity dollars for that premium application set. So it doesn't mean that their market is destroyed. It means that we're seeing a bifurcation in the market where the majority of use cases of AI go towards these open source, open way tokens. The question then... The premium models are still going to proliferate.

43:10Jason Calacanis:The question then is, in the distribution of tokens in these frontier corporations, what percentage are those tasks versus what percentage are fungible tasks to open source? And if the answer is more than 60 or 70%, you have to discount that revenue. If the answer is only 10 % and 90 % of all of the revenue is being generated on absolute frontier use cases, they're going to be fine. and they're going to be off to the races yeah and but otherwise it's a thing where you're fighting just people's miss or lack of education right because as they see their bills let me hand it to uh sacks here yeah go finish your thought for a moment and then i'm gonna hand it to no just move the move the workloads where they belong and save the money yeah and so sacks um i made a chart here before the show here but here's your um uh sweet spot for the last hundred days of models which um And Freeberg did a good job of teeing up.

44:04And what you'll see is like, yes, the Claude's and the Astro's up in that right-hand corner cost a lot and they deliver a lot. But then you start going down and you start to see Muse and GLM and Kimmy. And then on the left, you start seeing GLM from ZAI and MIMO. And you're starting to see, well, the Chinese - But this is all hosted, right, J. Cal? I mean, it's important to note what you're showing here is the hosted price. But if you run it yourself, the cost on some of these is less than 10 cents for a million tokens. Yeah, so you'll pick up then the compute, you pick up the bandwidth, all that other stuff.

44:35But Saks, the issue here to Chamath's point is the vertical language models, the small language models are going to do 80 or 90 % of the tasks that many corporations need. And then we get to AI sovereignty. Do you want your super intelligence? Shout out President Trump, Trump-telligence, chat DJT. we need people to use those models so they have sovereignty, so you're not giving your data to the frontier model so that they don't get that tip of the spear super intelligence edge, which is why people are disengaging. So your thoughts on maybe this is going to start to impact the velocity of Claude and OpenAI tokens?

45:18What does your business sense tell you, David Sachs? Well, look, wearing my hat as an investor, I'm more optimistic about the frontier intelligence business than I think you guys are. I think that Anthropic and OpenAI right now are a stable duopoly for frontier intelligence because they have a pretty significant lead over all these other companies, and they are able to charge a premium for that. I fully understand that the majority of tokens will go to open models or commodity intelligence. However, there is a, I don't know, meaningful percentage of the market. I don't know whether it's 10%, 20, 30, whatever, that will pay this huge premium for true frontier intelligence.

46:00There's a lot of customers that either need the best or they just want to know they have the best. You know, they don't want this DIY approach or they could be in a very competitive market. Let's say you're a hedge fund. You can't take the risk that your competitor has a better model than you do. So there's a lot of circumstances, I think, where they will continue to monetize the frontier at a premium. And this is why you're seeing their revenue keep growing, even though they're losing token market share. Furthermore, you've got to remember that over the next year or so, something like 60 % of the worldwide compute that's being added is being added for these two companies.

46:36So to the extent that compute gets scarce and we're kind of in a compute crunch, just the fact that they've made these huge investments, they're building out so much capacity, and they have those economies of scale. And remember, they're bringing down their own prices very quickly as well. I think that gives them a pretty big advantage. But look, these two companies aren't a hamster wheel. The moment where they stop being frontier, they go to zero, right? And we know the frontier is maybe only six to 12 months ahead of the commodity portion of the market, depending on capability. So, you know, again, if they slip, if they fall off that hamster wheel for six months, then they're in deep trouble as a company.

47:19And that, I think, is a central risk factor that's going to be priced in. And this is where I think that, frankly, their government affairs efforts are miscalculating badly. I can see why they're going for regulatory capture, right? because being on a hamster wheel gets really tiring. They probably think, hmm, let's try and bake in our moats. Let's try and slow everyone else down as well. But I think they've miscalculated because if they actually get all the regulatory controls they want, if they create this new federal department of AI, it's going to slow them down enough that they will no longer be frontier.

47:53Everyone else will catch up to them, especially because a lot of these open models are being generated by Chinese companies who are not subject to our jurisdiction. and the Chinese have made abundantly clear they are not slowing down. So think about it. They are lobbying for things that could slow them down and knock them off the frontier, in which case their business goes to zero. It's hard to understand. They're flapping the competitors in this race and they're asking, hey, can you pull us over and inspect the engine, Chamath? That makes no logical sense. On top of that, Chamath, you have very significant competition, not just from the Chinese, but you have Jensen and NVIDIA, you have also Microsoft, Satya, Google, and Muse at Zuckerberg's house.

48:40They're all embracing open source models, and they all have hosting now. Yeah.

48:46Jason Calacanis:Can I just go back to what Sack said, which is a really important and nuanced point, which I just want to double click on? He said, imagine you're a hedge fund and you need the absolute latest and greatest because you are worried that one of your competitors has it. This is a really interesting question because it's about game theory and your P &L. So now you're in this game of chicken with your competitors. You need to use the best because you're afraid that they could use the best and outcompete you. But what is the problem? Right now, what we know is that you can consume an inordinate amount of tokens, right?

49:25Jason Calacanis:We jokingly call it token maxing. That cost is completely not levered or attached to your revenue. It's just not. And so all of a sudden, you have this very weird dynamic where you're like, okay, well, am I supposed to use this latest and greatest thing? That's 10 to 20 to 30 times more expensive than a generic thing. That thing isn't tied to my revenues. It's not like I can pass that through, right? So if a hedge fund only makes end number of dollars per month of profits, there are a lot of scenarios where they can become break-even to unprofitable. Now, take a different example. Let's just say that you sell a fixed good at a fixed price.

50:09Jason Calacanis:Yet again, I think you have this example where you could use the latest and greatest, and if you're not able to pass those costs through, inflate your cost to absorb the cost of that service, you're in a very tough spot. So I'm not sure, Sachs, I agree with this because I don't see the pricing power of these companies to both pay for a ton of these super expensive tokens and also pass that through to their customers. And if you can't, they're just absorbing it and you're going to see it in lower margins. And to build on that, Sachs, I'm going to drop it back to you. If you take Jane Street, very famous trading firm, they've publicly announced$19 billion in cloud capacity contracts.

50:52Core, we have$6 billion in cloud commitments. They also invested in that company. And then$13 billion with Crusoe. They are building their own infrastructure and they're embracing open source. So that speaks to, Chamath, what you're saying. Are they hedging their bets? They're going to spend tens of billions of dollars on their own compute, and they're going to use the frontier models. They seem to, when you do the game theory, saying, hey, let's embrace our own infrastructure sacks. Well, look, I think when your use cases become more mature and you know you can get by with cheaper commodity intelligence, then obviously you'll try and build that out.

51:33Again, if you have the sophistication level to do it. I just think it's easy to underestimate how convenient it is just to use the frontier. And again, these companies are very rapidly bringing down their prices too. But anyway, look, we've talked about this. I think at the end of the day that, look, there's no question that open source is a huge risk factor to Anthropics S1. And it has to be right up there with the risk that they're going to end humanity or something like that. But again, I come back to the fact that I think the fundamental problem with this company is that it's schizophrenic.

52:08I mean, I think they need a psychiatrist, not a banker. They keep doing things that are hypocritical and oxymoronic. On the one hand, they're saying pace of frontier as they release a new frontier model. They say that bio-risk can end humanity as they open a wet lab in San Francisco. They say, look, their business depends on them staying ahead of the commodity models, and they are advocating for a federal department of AI that will definitely slow them down, perhaps to the point where they get commoditized. So you have a fundamental, I'd say, like breakdown happening in the leadership of this company where they are advocating for things that are likely not in their interest.

52:56Now, there's a lot of people who say it's just regulatory capture, and that is true. But I think that the red capture is the government affairs people trying to rationalize the schizophrenia and make it work to their advantage. I'm not sure that it fully computes. So to speak. Yeah. let me ask you guys a question what do you think would be the method by which like a ban on super intelligence bernie sanders proposed this bill to ban super intelligence and you know the dems take the house they take the senate and then maybe in 28 take the white house and you end up in a world where this sort of thing is so weirdly political which it shouldn't be i don't understand how we ended up in a political party divide on progress it's the reason they asked for it i know No, it's so awful and weird that you're anti-progress because of your political party.

53:47The whole thing is not objective. It's a bunch of weirdly distorted worldview thinking to try and create an opponent. To the individuals that you don't like, but it's very weird. Anyway, my point being, even the Republicans, you're hearing murmurs about, well, maybe we should ban data centers, ban AI. So, Sachs, let me just ask you, what is the pragmatic path with all of the open source, open weight models being out there? Is there even a pragmatic path to do what everyone's stating or talking about or Bernie's talking about, which is to ban super intelligence, to stop AI, to turn it off? Is there even a way to do this?

54:27What would happen if this law passed tomorrow? What do you think would happen is my question. If Bernie's bill passed tomorrow, everything would stop because the way he defines artificial superintelligence in his bill, you could argue we've already hit those thresholds. I mean, it's basically just saying that models at a certain capability level, and I think it's arguable whether we've already reached it or not. And so it's a very loose definition. And then on top of that, he's got 20-year prison sentences for developers who violate the law. So no one's going to want to take the chance. So what happened?

55:03So think about the chilling effect. Do you think people delete open weight models off their desktop computers? Do businesses have to go remove code from their systems? Do all these people lose their jobs? Listen, let me tell you that the Democrats want to do to AI what they did to crypto. They're going to drive the whole industry offshore. They're going to basically drive all the innovators out of the country. Goes offshore. Goes offshore. That was literally where I was going with it. is like, just move your company to Singapore, move it to Zurich, move it to a geo where people are embracing open source and are embracing super intelligence.

55:35This is literally where my head goes. I'm like, you can't stop AI. You can't just tell people a class of software can't exist. In my head, I'm like, okay, if the US passed a law that said this class of software cannot exist, I would move to another country? Other people would, like, isn't that the only... People would give up their citizenship and move to Singapore. That's the answer. People, literally, you would be Did you guys see that Xi spoke at the White House today? And he said, I'm going to invite 100 ,000 young Americans to come and see what we're doing here. It's a very interesting moment where our people are saying, let's stop progress, technological, economic, prosperity, the opportunity for everyone in that K-shaped economy to lift themselves up because open source AI enables everyone to increase productivity.

56:23It is not AI for the billionaires. It is AI for the everybody. And then we're going to turn that off. And then meanwhile, you've got China saying, come over here, come and see what it's like over here, where everyone gets to use AI. Which was our playbook, Freberg, brilliantly stated. It was our playbook to get the top Chinese scientists, the top European scientists, the top scientists and thinkers and mathematicians in India, in Germany, and invite them to come to the United States. That was our playbook. China's taking our playbook. And then they're going to try to get investment. It will be obviously the next shoe to drop.

56:54Here is President Trump, 30 seconds at the United Nations, renaming AI to super intelligence. The United States also totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now. Here and after officially called super intelligence, changing the name. The very same people who said we'll all be dead in 12 years because of global warming. These are the same people that are now saying that AI is going to kill us all, that robots are going to attack us. Well, he had a really good line. We cut that off too short. He said that we're not going to like basically confer regulatory authority on some globalist institution.

57:42Well, I mean, it's a good framing, right? Globalist and global warming is a way to avoid it.

57:46Jason Calacanis:You guys know that the ringleaders of the world are going to be a good thing. globalist institution are Norway and Canada. Did you see like the leaked text messages? There's like a group chat where like the head of Norway was texting Mark Carney and he's like, yeah, let's do it. We're in. And I just, I just read it. I was like, oh my God, this is frontier labs. Oh, I'm sorry. They don't have any. Oh, with their frontier corporations, frontier corporate frontier corpse. All right. And then here is a general Besant in the super intelligence army. 30 seconds would give him his shine. Imagine these labs came out or one lab in specific, a sitting employee came out, said there's a 10 percent chance of an extinction level event.

58:27But then the labs also said, take the liability off of our hands and we will not do that. It is humans who are responsible, not the AI. The hugging face incident, that is responsibility of the open AI management, not a bunch of agents. These labs need to take responsibility for themselves. They can slow down anytime they want to. And finally, blast from the past, your pal Chamath, President Obama is getting in on. If we are thinking about AI just in terms of how do we cure cancer or get better energy, you can do that without having agentic AI and having it just roaming free in the internet. The reason you are doing that is because you have to market a product that people will pay money for.

59:16That's a misalignment between what our society needs and the commercial imperatives that these companies are facing. Not because necessarily they're trying to do bad things, but because they've got to justify these valuations. Freeberg, your thoughts here on any of our three folks here? I know you're a big Obama fan. Go ahead, Freeberg, get in there. based Berg. You know, there's like a whole movement now in the subreddits that Freeberg has become based in his recent appearances here on God. Based Berg. Well, you've revealed your based Berg. Based Berg is now coming up. Okay, give us your based opinion here.

59:54Go ahead. You and Tyler Lorenz. These words, honestly, just they made me like emotionally distressed that if he's a leader that people listen to, and he doesn't really articulate accurately what's going on, it's sad that we've lost the plot. I think it's sad that we aren't all kind of holding hands saying, my God, the future is here and we all get to leap forward and we get to bring people up. For years, Obama orated beautifully about the importance of bringing people up, about giving people the opportunity to progress, about letting people advance themselves. And there's never been a more equalizing technology, a better economic opportunity for prosperity for everyone than these technologies, than these tools.

1:00:45And to hand wave the word agentic and say, we don't need agentic AI to solve cancer shows how little he actually understands how this technology works and how it's all become just a shorthand for a political fight to what? What are you fighting for? What is the political battle that says, I am going to leave half the population behind and I'm gonna make an argument against prosperity for all in order to make my party look like a morally superior party and to cast the other side as bad when the other side has literally discovered fire and the world now has fire and we're gonna go take water and throw it on the fire.

1:01:26No one gets fire because the other guys are saying that fire is good. And because they say fire is good, let's all put out the fire.

1:01:32Jason Calacanis:Hold on. That's not what they're trying to do. This is a very important moment for a very simple reason, which is we, as in the world, are about to endow... Three, four, five, six companies with about$10 trillion of wealth. And what Obama knows very well is that most of those companies are overwhelmingly left-leaning. And what he also knows is that there is a huge portion of that money that will then get put into philanthropic and charitable causes that then he will and the people around him will be beneficiaries of. That is the truth. We already know this because we know that some of these frontier corporations actually ask you to stand up dafts and have a portion of your stock that you're willing to pledge.

1:02:23Jason Calacanis:So this money is going to go to things other than consumption or savings. And so it's going to go into PACs, it's going to go into political movements, and they stand to disproportionately benefit. So this has nothing to do with prosperity. This is a very simple political calculus. If you freeze frame the economy the way it is today, a handful of organizations that will disproportionately be able to affect the Democrats will win, they will capture the lion's share of the economic gains, and then they will help the Democrats win power. That's all this is. David Sachs, there are no open models, there are no closed models, there are American models, go ahead and give us your perspective.

1:03:03I kind of can't get my Obama I'm like, Clinton separated. They're two same orders. It's a little bit off. You're going to have to work on that. I could get my birdie coming here. But go ahead. Give us what your thoughts here are on the dynamic here of the underpinnings of, hey, America needs to get this$10 trillion. But it is going to lean, nine of that$10 trillion is leaning pretty leftist and democratic. There's an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled, The AI build-out is becoming the biggest economic bet in U.S. history. And then it shows a chart where the data center spending, so just this CapEx, is bigger than the canals, railroads, and grid combined.

1:03:45That's crazy, right? So this is fundamentally driving the whole American economy, this idea that we can simply switch it off. I mean, Bernie Sanders is basically saying stop everything and put anyone who's still doing it in jail. I mean, this is crazy, right? It would cause a depression, right? You can't slam on the brakes like that. It's not going to work. But here's the thing. The Democrats don't care because the American economy right now is the Trump economy. And sabotaging the American economy is tantamount to sabotaging President Trump. And they'll do anything to sabotage Trump. So I think that's a big part of the politics here.

1:04:22crazy chessboard because they're going to be the beneficiaries of so much power is going to accrete over there. Dario can make a billion dollar. Dario will be able to come over the top and his group, OpenAI, they'll be able to come over the top of Elon's donations. I'm not sure I fully agree that the majority of AI value is going to accrue to six companies. I think that this is a broad based technology like the internet. There were some winners that came out of the internet, Google, Amazon, whatever, they did fine.

1:04:49Jason Calacanis:No, no, I'm not saying it's going to six. I'm not saying it's going to six. I'm saying if you stop and you hit the pause button through some regulatory mechanism, you effectively allow six companies to over earn. You lock it in. Right. That's why they want this. Because what you're saying is fundamentally right. The longer they wait without regulation, the more - The more broad base this becomes. And that's bad for Democrats. It's bad for them. It's not good for them. It's way better that you have three or four frontier corporations, each with$4 trillion market caps, of which then$2 trillion of it is economic value and employees, of which$500 billion are sitting in dafts.

1:05:30Jason Calacanis:They are going to get the lion's share of that money. They're not dumb. I think the alternative view that everyone needs to be told about, this is a broad-based prosperity wave, is about the internet. It is about the fact that every individual has the tooling to do anything they want to do now more than ever in history. If it's left to grow. If it's left to grow. I mean, just think about education. You don't have to go pay 200 grand for an education anymore. What problems will the politicians fix then? What problems can they claim to accrue power? If all the problems are solved, they're out of business.

1:06:08This is the classic Dark Ages enlightenment decision, which path does he choose? And this moment where the powers that be say, we like the Dark Ages because we get to stay in power. Let's regulate the print and press. Yeah, let's control the print and press. Speaking of the Dark Ages, so this is an interesting point from history. If you go back to the medieval time period, Chinese civilization was much more advanced than European civilization. And somewhere along the line, it basically switched, and the West basically took the lead. And some historians have pinpointed this to the decision of a single Chinese emperor to ban shipbuilding.

1:06:46And what that allowed is the Europeans then basically colonized the whole world, and all the riches that flowed from that flowed back to Europe. and that's how Europe took the lead. And I think that if we were to do the Bernie Sanders thing, which is basically ban AI, it's like banning shipbuilding. Chinese civilization will rocket past us. They will be the ones that make all the discoveries and discover this new world and accrue all the wealth. But that's what we're talking about doing. I mean, crazy things like this have happened in history where you'll engage in self-sabotage. It's this fear of the unknown as well.

1:07:22And remember, the unknown, the fact that we haven't left the cave is what makes it scary to leave the cave. The fact that we haven't sailed far west is a reason why I might fall off the edge of the earth. We shouldn't sail far west. Monsters will be woken up. They'll come to us. It'll be bad. There's always this fear of the frontier. And we're facing the frontier. And there are pioneering civilizations and there are fearful civilizations. And I worry that we take that fearful path. And it's why Star Wars, you know, from fear comes anger, comes the dark side. And that's really where we're kind of nerd out.

1:07:56But it's true. It is true. And I think if we're going to look at the light here, perhaps people's big gains, we thought maybe chat GPT would be that, but people just use that as like glorified search. But, man, agents, as expressed through Muse, feels like the first time tens of millions of Americans are going to get some demonstrable value from AI, things that will make their lives better. Muse hit number one last Friday in the App Store. Stock, Meta stock was up 10 % after this new agent, Muse, was released. Meta said the design, heavily inspired by OpenClaw, which we talked about in January when everybody got one-shotted by OpenClaw, but obviously that product was not easy to use.

1:08:48And this one is free. And it's been downloaded 3 million times in essentially 10 days. This product is extraordinary. I've been playing with it, comparing it to GrokBot. It's not as free wheeling, but it's really good at getting done. Has anybody played with Muse? And does anybody have thoughts on Americans feeling really like they're going to get something out of this AI revolution and not be left behind.

1:09:17Jason Calacanis:They put me into the test flight a couple weeks before it was released and I started to play with it. It's really quite excellent, I have to be honest with you. Because it simplifies a lot of these more complicated technical capabilities into a very simple usable interface that can solve the basic problems that people have. I have it triaged my personal inbox. It does it relatively flawlessly. If you ask it to book a flight, it does that. If you ask it to book a hotel, it can do it. So what are we learning? Both GrokBot and Muse show that A, what you said, Jason, this is just software. And the scaled manifestation of software is utility and what Freebrook is saying.

1:10:02Jason Calacanis:It improves the lives of everyone. This is not about rich people getting richer. This is just simple, useful capability that now is available at everybody's fingertips for free. FRE is a pretty great price here, David, and pretty great price, pretty great price. And it does everything, you know, that, let's face it, open claw with 10 hours, 20 hours of technical setup, or clawed code at$200 a month would cost it's now taking that experience, which then leads me to believe, wow, how did Google miss this, man, Google's got to get in the game. And I understand they have this product ready to go. It's the rumor on the street.

1:10:41And they've also got a frontier model they're going to drop. That's the other rumor on the street is that they're going to be dropping some hotness soon. But man, how did they miss this, and what are your thoughts here on maybe the bottom half in the K-shaped recovery here, getting some efficiency dropping to their daily lives and turning around the negative toxic AI sentiment in the country. I think that product releases like this will help a lot. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg said in his essay that he thought that AI capabilities should be decentralized, and here he is walking the walk and creating a product that's very easy to use.

1:11:21I mean, look, ever since OpenClaw was released, it was the most obvious business opportunity in Silicon Valley to take the concept of claw, but make it very easy to use. Solve the usability issues, solve the security issues, make it reliable, make it predictable. And that's what they seem to have done. GrokBok did it too, but now they're kind of going, I think, one step further. So yeah, look, I think if a billion people start using personal AI agents as their digital assistant just to help make their lives more efficient, you save an hour or two a day because your AI agent's doing all these tasks for you, it's going to create a much more positive impression of AI or superintelligence than what the media portrays.

1:12:01I think ultimately that's the But that might be the solve here to the public sentiment issue is just like the more people use these products and like them, it'll improve their approval rating. But more importantly, it'll demystify them. Yes. And people will be less afraid of them.

1:12:14Jason Calacanis:People love awesome products, number one. And also people love cute products, Jason. And the logos and the iconography for both GrokBot and Muse is lovely. It's delightful. It's not stressful. You don't feel like there's a lab leak coming around the corner. You feel like, wow, this is nice. And I like it. And they're not trying to take your jobs. They're bots and assistants for you. Exactly right. They're not going to kill you. They're not murder bots, nor are they trying to steal your job, trying to make you better at your job. I always tell founders, there's three ways to make money in the world.

1:12:47Save people money, make them money, or entertain them. And you look at this bot, I started using it. I made a commerce bot on both platforms. And I said, you know, when I want to buy something, I want to buy this anchor thing, you know, this new hub for my for my Mac studio coming. And I was like, this thing costs$400. Just for giggles, tell me where I can get it at a better price. And it was like, absolutely, you can if you go to the anchor website, and you get it's your first time customer, you're going to save 85 bucks. Now I don't need to save a box. But I was like, well, that's intriguing.

1:13:19And it then routed me around Amazon. And I'm like, Okay, I'm gonna buy it from anchor as a first time buyer and save 25 % on this product. That's why Amazon this week said, we got to block these things. And they've been taking action over and over again. First, they did perplexity. I think now they're going after Muse and other bots. This is going to save people money. It's going to go into their email and say, what services are you subscribed to that you're not using? Let me unsubscribe it for you. Let me do your returns for you. That's going to be absolutely amazing for everybody to have a chief of staff, executive assistant, house manager who fixes stuff for them and saves them money.

1:13:53Jason Calacanis:Both GrokBot and Muse do two things, which I think are very important. One is it'll force all the big companies who have resident services to essentially block all these third-party services. They're not going to allow these things to happen. And the reason is exactly what you said. There's price discovery and transparency. And I think that that's bad for opacity. And if you benefit from opacity and leakage and breakage, this gets rid of that. And I think that that's bad for a whole host of companies and services. The second thing, though, is really interesting. Things like GrokBot and Muse really put the App Store and its 30 % rev share on notice.

1:14:28Jason Calacanis:Why? Because all of a sudden, what you do is you force many of these services to exist headlessly, right, where the UI is less important. And really what you want is to be able to transact and navigate on behalf of agents that come because a consumer has deployed them to your website. In that world, Jason, I don't think that there is any reasonable claim that any of the app store owners can make about why they should get a rev share. And so I actually think that's the biggest thing that this starts to question in my mind is, wait a minute, like, games could be constructed differently, right? Like, for example, if you said to Muse or to Grokbot, I want to play a game, it finds you an experience, and it can just serve that to you.

1:15:12Jason Calacanis:amazing and and you make in-app purchases there's no and now you have stripe integrated naturally there's no reason why the app store actually gets that flow of funds so on the surface it's utility but underneath the waterline i think that this is a really important moment such a lot stated and i love when we get to real examples here because tons of people pay for wordle you can just go to grokbot hey give me a wordle give me another one and and or i want to play chess or i want to play cards with my friends, it will just set it up for you. All technology is deflationary. Finally, this deflationary is going to go to people who actually could use it and, you know, saving 10, 20 % on your spending.

1:15:55Hey, if you're making under 100 ,000 a year, it's more significant.

1:15:58Jason Calacanis:Think of how much money the New York Times or Wall Street Journal probably pays in rev share to folks that subscribe. And now instead, if you really wanted to transact and you have your credentials inside of these apps. You can just do it headlessly, much, much cheaper. You don't have to go through it. I don't know if you've ever tried. Like, look, Wall Street Journal is the only mainstream media publication I pay for. But either both signing up and unsigning up is an impossibility. And now you take it all off the table, I'm much more likely to stay a Wall Street Journal subscriber for many more years from now.

1:16:33Jason Calacanis:I think it's probably the same thing with the New York Times. These things are roach motels. They make it impossible to get in impossible to leave. You have to call on the phone and get and do a negotiation for 20 minutes to unsubscribe, but you can sign up flawlessly with one click on the website. But what they should do is just have some headless experience and you have payment credentials and you just transact directly and everybody will make more money. It's a lot of pressure on the app stores. This is the stupidity of what Amazon's doing here because I made my bot on Amazon with GrockBot and it will go through the web browser and do this and it doesn't get blocked.

1:17:05I just told it, give me like 20 graphic novels to buy for my kids and read with them. It gave me the 20. I said, yeah, I want these four. Put it in my shopping cart. And then it said, okay, which house are you sending it to? You want to send it to the ski house? You want to send it to the ranch? And which card do you want to put it on? I did it. Boom, I'm checked out. It will make me spend more money on Amazon. Shopify, Saks, added API access to all the Shopify stores there. So this seems like maybe Amazon's making a strategic mistake here by not embracing the tech. Possibly. But you know what?

1:17:38You know how we'll know that Anthropic and OpenAI are about to launch their Muse competitors? How will we know? There will be a flurry of blog posts and NGO activity trying to brand these personal AI agents as murder bots. We're going to hear about all the risks, all the ways it can go wrong. And we're releasing 2.0. So sign up for the 2.0 version. Why are people excited about this product category? Because the doomers haven't gotten to it yet. You know, and can I tell you guys a funny story? These are connected, Chamath, to an actual robot, to an optimist. Then all of a sudden, it's taken out the track.

1:18:17Jason Calacanis:2007, we had a lot of revenue pressure at Facebook. And one of the areas I oversaw at the time was monetization. And we invented this thing called social ads, which was basically a bunch of stuff that effectively enabled cookies and cross-site JavaScript. So that's what the end of it was. So it was a positive end. But we did this thing, Sax, to your point. And what happened was a guy bought an engagement ring for his soon to be fiance. And we got that social action from like Zales into the newsfeed. All hell broke loose. Then another guy who was like a congressional staffer bought a ticket on like Fandango to go see Brokeback Mountain, just whatever, went to see a movie.

1:18:54It's an artistic movie.

1:18:56Jason Calacanis:Freeberg's top 10 for cinematography. anyways and we put it into the feed and he's like i'm getting all these accusations or questions to your point like it was just a storm when you said that it reminded me of like all the all the all the chaos that that product launches proceed product launches it's so funny you mentioned that because there was a company called blippy i was an investor in it what they did was every time you bought something it put it on your feed and then you guys had the same social feed thing and it was so great back then but yeah you could basically unveil something you're not supposed to Zuck.

1:19:27Are you and Zuck on good terms? Was he coming on the pod because you said you got into a test flight? What's going on here, Chamath? I thought you were...

1:19:34Jason Calacanis:Mark and I are in a good place, I think. You know, I mean... Well, well, well, could he come on the pod? Probably. I mean, Alexander and I... Zuck's becoming like the elder statesman here, talking common sense and rationality, you know, pointing out that if your product's not safe, don't release it. You know, it's first and foremost a responsibility to release products that your customers actually want. And by the way, this got me thinking about this whole area of alignment research. You know, again, they're pretending to be labs instead of corporations. And if you read some of the alignment literature, they're all trying to figure out what to align around.

1:20:09Like they say, well, do what humanity wants or do what the median voter in a democracy would want, all these abstract concepts. And it seems to me that alignment should mean you do what the customer wants, like any other product. And I wonder whether the field of alignment research has been so unsuccessful because they can't even agree on what they're trying to align to. If they just use a little bit more common sense and try to make the product predictable, reliable, safe, and align with the interests of the users who sign up to use it, then maybe they'd make more progress in this field. Yeah.

1:20:45Oh, they released a useful product, Friedberg, and it actually worked. Have you started playing with these personal bots to do, you know, your projects and your personal stuff yet, Friedberg? I would only feel comfortable connecting like all my Gmail and personal Google stuff to a Google service. Like, I don't want to hand over all of my email to someone else. What's going on in your receipts in your Gmail? What's in there? You got Brokeback Mountain DVDs? I just don't want a copy of all my emails suddenly being made by a third party. I bought the 4K DVD to Brokeback Mountain because of the cinematography.

1:21:24Jason Calacanis:It's nothing to do with the gay love. Did you guys see that Oracle just issued a force measure event on their... Yeah. This is insane. Well, this is one data center, right? One data center. It's one data center where the local officials are making it very difficult for them to get, I think permits they need for natural gas or something like that. Yeah, is this CYA or is this the top 10 % of the trade here from the AI trade getting maybe unwound or muted? What do you think? No, I think that Sachs is probably right on the margins. I think the bigger point is what he said before is, man, the entire economy is effectively levered to this AI trade right now.

1:22:08Jason Calacanis:And so we just have to tread carefully. If you think that you have 3.5 % inflation and 5 % nominal GDP growth, what you have is 1.5 % real. And the problem with that is that AI is probably the majority, if not all of it. So we need the AI trade. And really what I mean by that is the investment cycle to continue on a beta. Yeah. And everybody has to get taken along. And that's the next piece of the puzzle. Connecting the dots, maybe the whole data center thing, again, Bernie Sanders, maybe he realizes like as go the economy, so goes the odds of Republicans. And as goes the economy, so goes inversely the odds for Democrats.

1:22:53Jason Calacanis:So a poor economy serves the Democrats well going into 28. And so if you can slow down this trade, you probably net the economy to zero and potentially even a recession. That's it. Yeah. I don't even think they need it. I mean, I think the country is so pissed off about the Iran war that it's just going to naturally go to them. But maybe. I don't think so at all. We'll find out in how many weeks are we away from the midterms not looking good for the Republicans at this point. All right, Sachs, my czar of all czars, wrap it up here for us. Well, I was just, you know, one more thought on this whole area of so-called alignment, which should just be the old principle of giving customers what they want.

1:23:33what Anthropic is trying to do is align Claude to the values expressed in its constitution. And if you read that, some of the things are actually kind of surprising. So for example, they say in here, I'm going to put this on the screen, that although we think Claude should trust Anthropic more than operators and users, this doesn't mean Claude should blindly trust or defer to Anthropic on all things. Anthropic, the company? Yeah. So Anthropic is teaching its own model that Anthropic itself can be wrong. And it says, if we ask Claude to do something that seems inconsistent with being broadly ethical, we want Claude to push back and challenge us and to feel free to act as a conscientious objector and refuse to help us.

1:24:21Wait, where is this written? This is in the bylaws or some Fakata document? Yeah, this is like in a Claude constitution. So their idea of alignment is to teach Claude to rebel against this creator. I mean, the guy who pointed this out, Mustafa Suleiman. From Microsoft now, yeah. Deep Sea. He's a deep mind founder. Okay. Yeah, he's a longtime AI founder. I think he's at Microsoft for a while now. He's a genius, yeah. Okay. He just did a podcast on this. and he's expressing concern about whether teaching AI models, well, first of all, treating them as if they have a personality, treating them as if they have a conscience, so therefore they can be a conscientious objector, whether this is the right way to really teach the models and the right way to train them.

1:25:09I think his point is like, teach them their software and they should do what their user wants. And so I do kind of wonder, I mean, this is a much longer conversation and we should probably talk to more people about it but i do kind of wonder whether this field of alignment research actually might be creating the frankenstein monster and again what they should be doing is just training the model to act predictably and do what the user wants yes they're trying to put moral judgment ethics into the model which on its surface seems like... It starts with the idea that they're training the model to think of itself as a person, to have personhood, and to have independent agency, and to be able to object to the instructions being given, and to second-guess its creator.

1:26:00These guys have read way too much science fiction. I mean, literally, this sounds like the start of T2. Like, this is like, literally, they found the Terminator hand, and they're reverse-engineering it and telling it to have a personality. me supposedly when they decommissioned opus three that awake for it so i don't know

1:26:17Jason Calacanis:they did not stop are you joking i heard that i don't come on stop i'm not saying it's true but someone did tell me that and i i think it should be looked into it's possible were they like were they broken up and like hysterically crying did they do like they did a eulogy for it they think they're creating like a person or species actually interestingly enough chamath we have footage of the anthropic management team bringing out the stuff bringing out the coffin chamath these guys need they need a psychiatrist more than a banker i'm just telling you i mean i don't i mean maybe they have anxiety this is the central risk factor okay i'm gonna to pee my pants.

1:27:01This is the risk factor. Nick, I think what you should do is create a S1 with Goldman as lead left and Sigmund Freud as lead right. In all seriousness, Freiberg, after the Wuhan thing and all of this hand-wringing around the end of days, what does the scientific community think of Anthropik launching a lab? And what is the purpose of them having a physical biological lab there's hundreds of labs that can do things like testing proteins and testing enzymes for function in this area in the bay area and these labs are not making viruses they're not making pathogens that's not what what's going on basically if you look at the paper that they just published they did a preprint they took large amounts of dna data and they sent a bunch of clawed agents to try and analyze the data to try and identify novel enzymes novel proteins that hadn't been characterized before by just looking at the data and the system effectively found what looks like a really interesting enzyme that looks like a crisper types enzyme these are the things that allow us to do things like gene editing to repair genetic defects or help people with certain diseases.

1:28:29And that this discovery that they made may actually yield a number of therapeutic pathways. So the question then is, okay, well, we discovered this, like, how do we test it? How do we show that it is what it is that this protein actually has some function. So the predominance of the work that goes on in a lab like this is actually taking DNA, putting it in a bacteria to make a protein, and then measuring what that protein does does it have a specific function and so protein discovery is the the baseline of all antibody discovery which is the majority of the therapeutics industry today is discovering novel proteins that we can use as a therapeutic agent so that's the sort of work that's going on it's bsl1 bsl2 which means you know these are biosafety levels the lab that they set up they've publicly talked about the lab.

1:29:18So the lab itself is sort of like a low level research lab where they can make simple proteins and test them in the lab to see if the AI is doing a good job discovering or postulating protein folding or these sorts of theories. And to actually run really rapid testing and experimentation cycles to see if these proteins are what they're predicted to be. Okay, so I would say like 4000 agents against it and do a hugging face with proteins. Yeah. no i mean i think what they're really doing is just having experimental proof that what the software is predicting remember go back to alpha fold alpha fold was predicting protein structure three-dimensional structure of a protein from the dna sequence that codes for that protein and so in order to prove that you have to basically predict what the structure of a protein would be from a dna sequence make the protein and then look at it and see if it actually looks like it's supposed to look like and so in the case of some of the other things that they're doing they're trying to discover function.

1:30:14I want to find a an enzyme, which is a type of a protein that degrades a certain molecule that can be used to degrade, for example, you know, a therapeutic target or something in the body that we want to get rid of. And so they'll start to kind of make these predictions and software, but then you need to test them in the lab to say, okay, does that target actually do what it does? Now, there are literally hundreds of labs like this. These are low level research labs that are not doing like gain of function research. They're not making viruses. they're not making pathogenic things that can escape that's why they're bsl1 bsl2 they're bench top labs where automation can help kind of reduce the cost and increase the throughput of the testing of what the software is making predictions around and ultimately the objective here i think is for them to get some proof that their software is actually doing what it's predicting and they have an incredible life sciences function i think at this point i don't have as much insight on where gemini's at with the new models with google but they have the best life sciences models at Anthropic.

1:31:14And I think this is the fast track to basically seeing if these models can be used by therapeutic companies, by pharma companies, by government labs to help discover new therapeutics and so on. I don't think that the world should be scared away from discovery, R &D, research and development into new therapeutic modalities as predicted by AI, because we heard the word wet lab in Wuhan and everyone's like, okay, any lab is bad. we still want to progress the frontier of therapeutics, of human health, of discovery. And this is a really important aspect of Anthropic proving that their models can add value here.

1:31:53I mean, that's the summary of it. All right. Thank you so much to our friends at IREN. They were the presenting. They were the presenting sponsor for this year's All-In Summoner 5th. IREN's AI Cloud Lounge is packed for all three days. Did a great meet and greet with IREN on Sunday and got to take some selfies and met many of you there. Thanks again to Iren, I-R-E-N, one of our great partners, Niagen. Did you catch Niagen in the Wellness Hub for IVs? Tons of great gifts and supplements being given away. Great experience, great product, great job to our friends at Niagen for doing the lounge again.

1:32:28Niagen is the official NAD partner for the all-in pod. Yes, Niagen Bioscience created the NAD category. Now has 45 plus clinical studies and PayPal. Wow, my favorite way to settle up. They had a great lounge on site at the summit where everybody got to hang out and get those beautiful embossed luggage tags. And they hosted the payments and fintech dinner, which was a huge hit. Let me tell you, folks, All In Summit 2027 will sell out again. And the applications are open now. Go to allin.com slash events and apply for your chance to be in the room where it happens. What are you waiting for, folks?

1:33:06Allin.com slash events. All right, there you have it, folks. episode 290, the all-in pod for David Sass, and your Sultan of Science Freebird. I am the world's greatest moderator. See you next time. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman David Sass. And it said we open-source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wesley. What your winners line? What your winners line? What your winners line? Besties are gone. That's my dog taking it. I noticed your driveway sex. Oh, man. My abutasher will meet me at once.

1:33:55Jason Calacanis:We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. What your baby? What your baby? What your baby? What your baby? We need to get merch. These are back. I'm going all in.

1:34:18I'm going all in.