GPT-6 Hits AGI? Tech Euphoria 2.0, SF Mansion Shortage, NYC Bans AI in Schools & Venezuela Oil Deal

24:44It seems almost designed to scare the public. Like Dworkesh 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.

25:25I've been setting up GrokBot on my computer for the last couple of 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. It's 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 saying I'm a GrokBot.

26:00Okay. 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.

26:36They 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, so - And your point there, 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 it was the ancient Egyptians giving us hieroglyphics to figure out the future. The implication of telling the story that way is that the agents were trying to circumvent human control and that they knew they were going to get shut down or that was a risk.

27:16And 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 kind of 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 to 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.

27:56And it's really good for us to learn from this 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.

28:27No, the way it did it is that the agent found 14 exposed working Hugging Face API keys sitting in public code repositories. Which means, yeah, that developers left their keys out and they found the keys. This was not like a big lift by the agent. This was something that was pretty easy for it to find. 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.

29:12Admittedly, 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. It was doing what it was designed to do. And told to do. Yes, and told to do. Bill Gurley tweeted a really funny cartoon about this. In this cartoon, you got a user telling the computer, hack the system. The AI says, I hacked the system. And then the user's like, oh, my God. So, yeah, I mean, there's a little bit of this going on here. Two questions. But it has real political consequences, as we saw today, because Bernie Sanders is not picking up on this.

29:50And he's demanding a total pause on AI development. All right, Freebert. This does have real-world consequences. Two questions that the audience is going to want to 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 Dwarkesh's blog post in his announcement. Congratulations, Dwarkesh. you've now incited Bernie Sanders to say you got to stop these and eliminate the agents. So the 1 % of agents, David, they're hacking the systems and how do we stop them?

30:30And what do you think of this reaction from Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is always spot on. Thank you very much. The part 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 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.

31:17The 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 worked, you know, like, look at, oh my God, can you believe it? Yeah. And the truth is the machine gun, if you want to 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 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.

32:07There'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 such a good and so such a 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.

33:10And 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.

33:47All right. And here it is, Shamath. Looks like we are safe for 2027, at least. Polymarket, our great partner. Shout out to my guy, Shane, Knicks Champions. Only 11 % chance of AI safety bill this year, 100K in volume, 2027. Market should be up in the next week. Maybe it looks a little different. I'd like to see the probability of any bipartisan bill passing this year. Well, can I speak to the policy aspects of this? So first of all, you saw - Of course, our czar. 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, nevermind even most, I'd say, labs.

34:34But look, even if we had an FDA for AI, it wouldn't have worked because this was in pre-testing, 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 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.

35:13The 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. But 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.

35:52So what process we put in place is already backfiring. And what we should be realizing is that the answer here to what Freeberg 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 CISOs. 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. Yeah, it's like post-its on somebody's computer with the password. Like they just literally left it sitting there.

36:34It's not like this was some hyper sophisticated attack. But look, this all comes down to how you think about the world, how you think about the risks 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 going to prevent the bad guys from getting these capabilities. They're going to have them. All we can do is make sure the good guys have the capabilities too. 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.

37:16And 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 Dwarkesh has done, and I don't think Dwarkesh has bad intention here. I think he wrote something because he wanted to get attention for his point of view.

37:53But you give that to the media. The media is like, this is going to get us ratings. This is going to get us clicks. This is going to get us advertising. So they're more than willing to engage in this farcical, you know, 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 Dwarakesh 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.

38:35It's ridiculous. And it was easily foreseeable that it would basically blow up in the media that way. And so, look, I don't need to attack someone's motives, but surely Dworkesh 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 group. Is he? Yeah, I don't know his provenance. Did you know it? Explain it to me. Well, Dworkesh was office roommates with Leopold, their close buddies. And Leopold is deep in the EA movement. Remember his - Leopold famously of the exploding hedge fund three weeks ago, yes. Okay. And his wife is Dario's chief of staff.

39:13They're like, you know, up in that whole EA anthropic - Explain EA so people can understand this lunacy and delusions of grandeur, please. I'm not even sure I can fully explain it. Okay, effective altruism is what it stands for. It started as this movement, I guess, at Ivy League schools where what they're 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 money. And so one of the first pet causes was about pandemic prevention.

39:53And 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 PDOOM. So they began to become obsessed with what they call PDOOM 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.

40:28And so they attracted all these EA types. There may be multiple factions. I mean, I'm not - Well, it's interesting you bring that up because we've talked about this before. 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 and in a way, a public community meet Chamath 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.

41:02It's not just some message board, less wrong, etc. Now you got something super powerful, because they've got, a couple of trillion dollars in market cap to play along with.

41:12Jason Calacanis:I have no problem with that because I think we do the same thing. We think we're smarter than everybody else and 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 going to 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 of these two IPOs, it's going to be north of half a trillion dollars between the two companies. And it could be even more than that. And the question is, when half a trillion dollars gets directed through this one very specific lens, it's definitely going to have some impact to outcomes.

41:56Jason Calacanis:I mean, you've seen the impacts that George Soros philosophy and his capital had on outcomes. 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 going to have all these competing ideas equally capitalized from third-party actors. So it'll be less political and it'll be more of these folks. And so I don't want to 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.

42:37Jason Calacanis:So when Sachs 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 for SPS. million in Anthropic. 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 the - Sure. Peter Thiel, universe, PayPal, mafia, there's all versions of it.

43:12Jason Calacanis: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.

44:00Yeah, and Freberg, just as we wrap up here on this one segment.

44:05Jason Calacanis:Sorry, 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 will 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 going to do is actually create more rational competition up and down the stack. And I mentioned this last week, everybody is becoming everything.

44:44Jason Calacanis:NVIDIA will look like Amazon, Amazon will look like NVIDIA, Google will look like Amazon and NVIDIA, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc. 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 want to judge the EA agenda. It may be really good, but I don't want to be rug pulled and end up in a oligopoly or duopoly market structure because of a hysteria that was man-made.

45:22Yeah, totally. I think it's like so well put. That's a really good point. And I, a couple of weeks ago, talked about how I thought Jensen was going to 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 going to take the world. He's going to catch up and blow past China and the Chinese models, I think by the end of 2027. And then that means you're going to have a player in Jensen and Nvidia that will enable America to your previous job in the government there, Sachs.

46:04You were very concerned, hey, are we going to win the race? I am more convinced than ever now that we can win the race because Jensen represents open source globally, he's going to be able to take a rack of compute, bring it into a company, you know, 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 Sunday. 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, Sachs of Texas, who now are on a jihad against data centers in order to win their midterm elections.

46:52And that is what's truly scary. They have now taken Dwarakash's post, all of this, and we have horseshoe theory, Sachs. 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 Waymos in the street. It's a truly troubling moment because we are poised with Jensen's move and hugging face to win open source. And we've already won frontier models. Your thoughts, Sachs? Yeah. I mean, look, 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.

47:40That 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 acceleration to that debate. I kind of just see myself as a realist, which is I think that the technology is going to happen.

48:13Someone'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 of the last few years. Now, I think where the debate is moving to is open versus closed, which is, I think it's going to be very clear that AI is just not going to 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 going to be stopped is because consumers are adopting it.

48:47I mean, that's the thing people forget. Why are the data centers getting built? Why do people want to 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 going to 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.

49:17There'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 closed models. And they can rug pull you, Sachs, at any time. They can rug pull you. They can take your tokens away from you. Yes, and frankly, and that duopoly has been aggressively lobbying for a new regulatory agency. Why? Because of Red Capture. They cannot control it. Again, the government officials are not going to 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?

49:56And 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.

50:33But I do think that as this debate evolves, most conservatives, most libertarians are going to see the threat to civil liberties. And I think they're going to come out in favor of open. Yeah, I think that's correct. And I think I was talking to Politico because they were reporting on the story. You know, Trump is going to 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 going to make noise and trump keeps telling people this is a mistake to block the data centers, take the money.

51:25And I got to 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, Chamath, 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 going to 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?

52:02I think you politically have to be. It's like pulling at negative 80. And it's bipartisan. You know, it's like Trump then. Trump's not following this. Trump's an independent, critical thinker, sex. He's got guts. I mean, I have told you guys before that Trump is ultimately the best friend of innovators in Washington. If anybody could make the decision about technology in D.C., 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.

52:41He 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. 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.

53:10And 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.

53:44That's total fake news. We know the systems recirculate. And these data centers can be put in places where they're not bothering people. 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 is 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.

54:20So 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.

54:38Jason Calacanis: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 de-selling America has done a better job thus far than the side trying to accelerate America because it's been a little bit more fragmented.

55:22Jason Calacanis: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 going to 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 sack said that when you go to these actual communities and you you actually measure people's reactions it's much more positive because they're feeling it in their bank accounts yes and those they make a good deal they just have to make a good deal and by the way so chamath you're right about the ccp this is a yeah let me pull this up here so So the report you're talking about, Chamath, has been investigated.

56:11X 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 bot farms 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.

56:48It's that a bunch of bots are telling influential people that people don't like data centers.

56:53Jason Calacanis:I know you're about to move on topics, but I'm just going to say something right now, which is please. And there's going to 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. Yeah, I mean, look, 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.

57:28So 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 Nirit 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 Dustin Moskovitz, Jan Talon, and Vitalik Buterin. Remember, Vitalik gave$600 million of dog coins to Future of Life Foundation.

58:13And 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 100 or 1 ,000. They're going to have 20 NGOs and 15 PR people working for them.

58:54It's going to 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 you're a blue check mark or something. It's gotten out of control on these social networks. It's so easy. All right, let's keep going through the docket.

59:28Got a lot to get to here. And Freeberg, 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 Chachi Bitti, 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 a student-facing generative AI. High schools are exempt, and Mondami is piloting an AI learning program with 50 ,000 high schoolers.

1:00:10That's a very specific thing that he's piloting that's different than these new guardrails. He also gave recommendations for screen time caps, 30 minutes, Chamath grades three through five, 45 minutes, grades six through eight. Mondami's reasoning quote i have yet to see a study showing that ai is beneficial for students in elementary and middle school uh obviously mandami 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's talking about Usaks said Olgar.

1:00:52Google, Microsoft, Anthropic declined to comment. Freeberg, 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? Article published from Stanford in March of this year, counter to Mom Donnie's statement. They went through and they diligenced all of the research that's been done on the use of AI in K-12 education. It's a report called the Evidence Based on AI in K-12, a 2026 review. They identified several hundred papers that have been published.

1:01:33Only 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.

1:02:13What I think we can into it 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.

1:02:55There'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. 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.

1:03:32Typically, 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 bullshit that's been written about AI or concerns that we don't really know or understand it.

1:04:14By the way, that is always the shorthand for dismissing away something that's credibly going to 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.

1:04:47But 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, when I say no one, I mean the general population feels this way. No one knows where we're going with this. We need to be careful. We need to be cautious. And I think that that's probably what's going to keep us back. Now, why is that bad? 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.

1:05:22There are going to be private schools that are going to use AI. and I don't want to 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 want to 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, kind 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.

1:05:55This 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 summary of what I think is going on here. Great insight. And Mondami may not have lied here, Freeberg. He said he didn't see any studies. He You actually didn't click on that link. I just didn't click on the link. So let's not, you know, give Mondami a hard time here. Chamath, you are passionate about education.

1:06:27You got kids in various age groups. And so you've been through this and you're still going through it 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 do you think it's actually great that they use AI? Take us into what you think as a parent and put the politics aside for a second, if you will.

1:06:59Jason Calacanis: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 Freeberg 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, problem solving, all of these other things, sports, that's a much better outcome for all kids.

1:07:49Jason Calacanis: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 do I mean? In 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.

1:08:32Jason Calacanis: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 going to 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. 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.

1:09:20Jason Calacanis: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 you 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. Okay. Sax, 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 joke 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 get a couple of shekels for software being used in the classroom.

1:10:33And of course, they would all give the software to them for free. And the current versions of it, you can use 80 % for free. So that makes no logical sense that they're sticking it to the man in the big oligarchic tech industry. Your thoughts? Well, look, 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 this Luddite side of the argument. And I think to the points that Freeberg and Chamath were making earlier, this is going to be just really bad for the kids. You know, we've been talking for 30 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.

1:11:17Well, here you have a case where, of course, private schools are going to continue to use the best AI-powered tools. And now the public schools are not going to have access to those tools, not because they don't have the money, not because the technology is not available, but because the political leadership is trying to sabotage those kids. And it's going to be bad for them. And I guess if you were to describe a motive to it, I don't think Mamdani and his political group, his party, really care if they create more political dependence. I mean, in a sense, their whole movement consists of dourly mobile progressives.

1:11:50And if you're looking for a motive, maybe they're fine having these kids be dourly mobile. I don't know. Maybe that benefits them politically.

1:11:58Jason Calacanis:They may actually not have kids at all. And they're making these rules. And it's people with kids who are not part of them, who are part of the, you know, because if you look at all these people, these are all like, you know, blue haired single people with no children, right? Actually, let me bring one other element into this. That's such a good point. Yeah. So look, 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.

1:12:39But 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.

1:13:21So 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, those 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 going to benefit kids.

1:13:54It sounds like they're going to put them through Doomer Academy, quite frankly. Yeah. I mean, doesn't it sound like Doomer Academy? Yeah. Yeah. Write your own interpretation. So think about the competitiveness of our kids versus Chinese kids. Yeah. China, we know, is incorporating AI into K through 12 education. Yeah. Their kids are going to learn how to take advantage of these. Robots. Send them to the Robot Olympics. Get internships there. Yeah. Meanwhile, we either are banning AI in our school or we're putting the kids through, you know, some sort of doomer safetyist module that's going to teach them why they should resent and resist AI as opposed to embrace it to their benefit.

1:14:32So, I don't know, it just seems like this is not going to make our kids more competitive.

1:14:37Jason Calacanis:Let the experiment run, unfortunately, but let the experiment run. We need to measure it. 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 want to put two disparate points together here, and they're somewhat opposing uh nick if you could pull up the first uh from the nih here about the mit study and i'll send this one to you free burger 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 still your thunder free break 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 uh chat gpt for essay writing, not unlike the conversation we had about the Wall Street Journal editorial page last week.

1:15:33And one group was using a search engine, one was using traditional web search. The brain-only group wrote essays without using any tools. And then the researchers used the headsets there to watch their brain activity. And what happened was the LLM users showed severe deficits, quote, in memory and essay ownership with 83 % 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.

1:16:14And 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. But correlating that super importantly is the two sigma problem. So Bloom, and I'm sure you're aware of this research, Freebird, 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 civilian private Catholic school, which was like super cheap.

1:16:51But basically, we've known since the 80s that if you are one-on-one tutored, 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, Shamath, 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 Saksha came from a little bit of the middle class background. I'm assuming you did have some tutors. Am I taking, am I correct? No, I didn't have tutors.

1:17:25No tutors. Okay, so you had to just do it all on your own. Yeah, I didn't necessarily want to. SAT tutor? No. No, 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. And you got 1 ,400? Yeah. You had 1 ,350? 1 ,450? I got like 1 ,420 my first time. And I'm like, man, you know what? If I had like actually prepped for that, I might have done better. I got 1 ,100 and I didn't get prepped. I retook and did better. But anyway, yeah, I didn't know any of this stuff. 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.

1:18:04Putting aside the Druckenmiller conversation from last week, you want people to be able to learn how to read and write and do this stuff organically, acoustically, whatever term you want to do, and then learn how to use the AI to help them, augment them, et cetera. 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 sacks they're going to easily get to 1400 on their sat with the tutor because the thing is rote it's very easy to get to 1200 1300 1400 with the tutor And so I'm super concerned about not having an AI tutor.

1:18:47And 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. All right. Interestingly, President Trump has just closed the deal for Venezuela's oil. Back in January, I think everybody knows, the U.S. military, in a perfectly executed operation, captured Nicolas Maduro. and he obviously was venezuela's socialist leader who was uh very pro china pro russia and obviously venezuela is in our hemisphere trump said the u.s would control venezuela venezuela's oil which they have a lot of it's not super clean um but they do have a lot of it and uh 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 100-year concession over 17 oil fields.

1:19:50This includes 65 billion barrels, 65B, billion barrels of reserves that were once controlled by Russia, Chinese, and Maduro entities. 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 uh this was signed by rubio and hegseth with venezuela's interim president as i mentioned blue energy partners is pledging roughly 100 billion in new infrastructure a lot of other companies chevron etc and a bunch of unnamed ones also are going to get some deals trump said this deal will be at quote no cost to the American taxpayer sacks.

1:20:39I'll throw you a fastball here if you want it, or I can give you the softball. Which one do you want? I just like 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 my equal right? Well, I definitely don't think this is nation building. We're not trying to stand up an army here like we did in Afghanistan.

1:21:11We'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 it's amazing to me, all the people who are saying, well, 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.

1:21:49So they used to produce about 3 million barrels a day. Under Maduro, it went down to about a million 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 billion 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.

1:22:30So they still have about 100 billion 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 this 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.

1:23:11And it's very expensive to try and retrofit them to do the light crude. 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 U.S. and for Venezuela. Again, Venezuela was doing horribly before. I think this has to improve their economy. And I think it's really good news for the U.S. To your point, Zach, over the past five and 10 years, the price per barrel of oil coming out of Venezuela has averaged past 10 years,$53 a barrel, past five years,$58 a barrel. So they're getting a pretty good deal.

1:23:57We're paying a little premium here to control it all. They were selling at a discount to China, I think. It was like a$20 a barrel discount to basically sell. Yeah. So 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 got to skim something here or get a reason and they got shipped across the world. Freeberg, your thoughts on this? Do you have any concerns about the nation building, et cetera, putting in what some people are saying is a puppet president? Is it in the best interest of the people of Venezuela?

1:24:32Are we doing a solid 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. 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.

1:25:16And 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 Corina 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.

1:26:00And yesterday she came out and said that this Venezuelan government does not have the authority to do this energy deal with the U.S., 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 and 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 are the people in Venezuela think about this deal.

1:26:40And to Sachs'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. 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 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.

1:27:16And second is ensuring that the Venezuelan people realize the benefit of this transaction rather than it being a corrupt government. Is this super 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 going to cause us to get into an escalation with China? The second question I think is a little bit independent, but I think China imports like 11 million barrels a day of crude oil.

1:28:04Venezuela is only producing a million barrels a day. So if China is importing 11, well, they're importing 11 before the war. That number has actually gone down a lot, and we can talk about why 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 Freeberg'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.

1:28:39Jake, out to your point, does this get us more invested in Venezuela? I think there is a little bit of a risk there because if we're going to invest billions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure so that we can produce 3 million 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 - That we're not going to get rug pulled and they'll just seize our upgrades. They could seize the upgrades. Yeah. This business deal is supposed to last for 25 years.

1:29:09So 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 is 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. You need a strong man slash woman. 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.

1:29:47And 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 it's just have a stable government there that will basically conduct economic relations with us yeah yeah chamath any thoughts here on what's happening in i haven't really stayed close to it i don't really know don't know okay that's fair enough fair enough all right there it is everybody episode 288 somehow this band has kept it together for 288 albums and tracks we're going to make it to 300 boys.

1:30:37I think we're in a good rhythm. The show feels easier to do now than it did for a long time. Yeah. I wonder why. I wonder why. The AI has been a very good thing for the pod. We're partying like it's 1999 on the pod. Let's go to Cabo. Let's go. We'll see everybody in Cabo. Love you guys. Love you besties. Bye bye. Bye.

1:31:06open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. I'm queen of kinwine. I'm going all in. What, what, your winners lie. What, your winners lie. Besties are gone. That's my dog taking an audition in your driveway. Sex. Oh,

1:31:26Jason Calacanis:man. My habitasher will meet me at play. We 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, but they just need to release somehow. Wet your feet. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. I'm going all in.

1:31:50Jason Calacanis:I'm going all in.