JD Vance's AI Speech, Techno-Optimists vs Doomers, Tariffs, AI Court Cases with Naval Ravikant

23:18They wanna know how to be better at a game. All right, let's keep moving through this docket. We have David Sacks with us here. So David, give us your philosophy of parenting. Okay, next item on the docket, let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Some of us are real issues. This is the same as a parenting show. The parenting show. Yeah, I asked David what you're parenting philosophy. He said oh, I set up their trust four years ago. So it's not he's good Trust to set up everything's good GR18 You're all set guys. Let me know how it works out All right speaking of working out we've got a vice president who isn't Kuku for cocoa puffs and who actually understands what AI is, JD Vance gave a great speech.

24:05I watched it myself. He talked about AI in Paris. This was on Tuesday at the AI Action Summit, whatever that is. And he gave a 15 -minute banger of a speech. He talked about over -regulating AI in America's intention to dominate this. And we happened to have with us, Naval, the ZAR. The ZAR of AI. So before I go into all the details I don't want to steal your thunder. Saks, this speech had a lot of a verbiage, a lot of ideas that I've heard before that maybe we've all talked about. Maybe tell us a little bit about how this all came together and how proud you are. I mean, gosh, having a vice president who understands AI is just, it's mind -blowing.

24:48He could speak on a topic that's topical, credible. This was an awesome moment for America, I think. What are you employing there, J .K. I'm implying you might have workshopped it with him. No. Or that he's smart. Both of those things. The vice president wrote the speech, or at least directed all of it. And so the ideas came from him. I'm not going to take any credit whatsoever for this. Okay, well, it was on point. Maybe you could talk about it. Yes, I agree it was on point. I think it was a very well crafted and well -delivered speech. He made four main points about the Trump administration's approach to AI.

25:20He's going to ensure, this is point one, that American AI continues to be the golf standard. There's a fantastic check too. He says that the administration understands that excessive regulation could kill AI just as it's taking off. And he did this in front of all the EU elites who love regulation, did it on their home court. And then he said number three, AI must remain free from ideological bias as we've talked about here on this program. And then number four, the White House, he said, will quote, maintain a pro worker growth path for AI so that it could be a potent tool for job creation in the U .S.

25:57So where are your thoughts on the four major bullet points and his speech here in Paris? Well, I think that the vice president, you knew he was going to deliver an important speech as soon as he got up there and said that I'm here to talk about not AI safety but AI opportunity. And to understand what a bracing statement that was and really almost like a shot across the bow. You have to understand the history and context of these events. For the last couple of years, the last couple of these events have been exclusively focused on AI safety. The last in -person event was in the UK at Glechley Park, and the whole conference was devoted to AI safety.

26:37Similarly, the European AI regulation, obviously, is completely preoccupied with safety and trying to regulate away safety risks before they happen. Similarly, you had the Biden in EO, which was based around safety. And then you have just the whole media coverage around AI, which is preoccupied with all the risks from AI. So to have the vice president get up there and say right off the bat, that there are other things to talk about in respect to AI, besides safety risks, that actually there are huge opportunities there was a breath of fresh air, and like I said, kind of a shot across the bow. And yeah, you could almost see some of the euro crats They needed their fainting couches after that.

27:20Hero crutch. Trudeau looks like his dog is died. So I think that was just a really important statement right off the bat to set the context for the speech, which is AI is a huge opportunity for all of us. Because really that point just has not been made enough. And it's true, there are risks, but when you look at the media coverage and when you look at the dialogue that the regulators have had around this, they never talk about the opportunities. It's always just around the risk. So I think that was a very important corrective. And then like you said, he went on to say that the United States has to win this AI race.

27:55We want to be the gold standard. We want to dominate. That was my favorite part. Yeah. And by the way, that language about dominating AI and winning the global race, that is in President Trump's executive order from week one. So this is very much elaborating on the official policy of this administration. And the vice president that went on to say that he specified how we would do that, right? We have to win some of these key building block technologies. We want to win in chips. We want to win in AI models We want to win in applications. He said we need to build we need to unlock energy for these companies and then most of all We just need to be supportive towards them as opposed to regulating them to death and he had a lot to say about the risk of overregulation how Often it's big companies that won regulation.

28:39He warned about regulatory capture which our friend Bill Gurley would like And he said that so basically having less regulation can actually be more fair, can create a more level playing field for small companies as well as big companies. And then he said to the Europeans that we want you to be partners with us. We want to lead the world, but we want you to be our partners and benefit from this technology that we're going to take the lead in creating. But you also have to be a good partner to us. And then he specifically called out the over regulation that Europeans have been engaged and he mentioned the Digital Services Act, which has acted as like a speed trap for American companies.

29:18It's American companies who've been over -regulated and fined by these European regulations because the truth of matter is that it's American technology companies that are winning the race. And so when Europe passes these owners' regulations, they fall most of all on American companies. And he's basically saying, we need you to rebalance and correct this because it's not fair and is not smart policy, and it's not going to help us collectively win this AI race. And that kind of brings me to the last point is I don't think he mentioned China by name, but clearly he talked about adversarial countries who are using AI to control their populations to engage in censorship and thought control.

29:59And he basically painted a picture where it's like, yeah, you could go work with them or you could work with us. And we have hundreds of years of shared history together. we believe in things like free speech, hopefully. And we want you to work with us. But if you are going to work with us, then you have to cooperate. And we have to create a reasonable regulatory regime. Naval, did you see the speech in your thoughts just generally on JD Vance and having somebody likes us, you know, representing us and wanting to win American exception. Very surprising, very impressive. I thought he was polite, optimistic, and just very forward looking.

30:37It's what you would expect an entrepreneur or a smart investor to say. So I was very impressed. I think the idea that America should win great. I think that we should not regulate. I also agree with, I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation, but there's just a religion that comes along in many phases, which is that, oh, climate change is going to end the world, AI is going to end the world, Asteroids going to end the world, COVID -19 is going to end the world. And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? It captures everybody's attention at once.

31:05It's a very seductive thing. And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias, motivated reasoning by the company's horse ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them. I think they genuinely believe it. I think they genuinely believe that they're safety risks, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along. But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open source go at it And you should let just a few of us work with you on it But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing right because if it was truly the Manhattan Project if they were building nuclear weapons You wouldn't want one company to own that Sam Altman famously said that AI will capture the light cone of all future value In other words, like all value ever created at the speed of light from here will be captured by AI So if that's true, that I think open source AI really matters.

31:57And little tech AI really matters. The problem is that the nature of training these models is highly centralized. They benefit from super computer, clustered compute. So it's not clear how any decentralized model can compete. So to me, the real issue boils down to is how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing? And we thought we had that solution with the original open AI, which was a nonprofit was supposed to do for humanity. But now, because of the one incentivized the team, and they want to raise money, they have to privatize at least a part of it.

32:30Oh, that's not clear to me why they need to privatize the whole thing. Like, why do you need to buy out the nonprofit portion? You could leave a nonprofit portion, and you could have the private portion for the incentives. But I think that the real challenge is, how do you keep AI from naturally centralizing? Because all the economics and technology underneath are centralizing in nature. If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God in a leash with one entity controlling God? That to me is the real fear. Not I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us For our own good because that's how it always works So well said probably should go with the Greek model having many gods and heroes as well freeberg You heard the JD events speech.

33:14I assume where do you thoughts on over regulation and and maybe to Neville's point, one person owning this versus open source. I think that there's this kind of big definition of social balance right now on what I would call techno optimism and techno pessimism. Generally, people sort of fall into one of those two camps, generally speaking techno optimists. I would say our folks that believe that accelerating outcomes with AI, with automation, with bioengineering, manufacturing, semiconductors, quantum computing, nuclear energy, etc. We'll usher in this era of abundance by creating leverage, which is what technology gives us.

33:58Technology will make things cheaper, and it will be deflationary, and it will give everyone more. So it creates abundance. The challenge is that people who already have a lot worry more about the exposure to the downside than they desire the upside. And so, you know, the technopesamists are generally like the EU and large parts, frankly, of the United States are worried about the loss of X, the loss of jobs, the loss of this, the loss of that, whereas countries like China and India are more excited about the opportunity to create wealth, the opportunity to create leverage, the opportunity to create abundance for their people.

34:37GDP per capita in the EU, $60 ,000 a year. GDP per capita in the United States, like $82 ,000. But GDP per capita in India is 2500 in China's 12 ,600. There's a greater incentive in those countries to manifest upside than there is for the United States and the EU who are more worried about manifesting downside. And so it is a very difficult kind of social battle that's underway. I do think like over time those governments and those countries and those social systems that embrace these technologies are going to become more capitalist and they're going to require less government control and intervention in job creation, economy, payments to people and so on.

35:21And the countries that are more technopesimistic are unfortunately going to find themselves asking for greater government control, government intervention in markets, governments creating jobs, government -making payments to people, governments effectively running the economy. My personal view obviously is that I'm a very strong advocate for technology acceleration, because I think in nearly every case in human history when a new technology has emerged, we've largely found ourselves assuming that the technology works in the framework of today or of yesterday year. The automobile came along and no one envisioned that everyone in the United States would own an automobile and therefore you would need to create all of these new industries like mechanics and cargy ships, roads, all the people service eye -nilting roads and all the other industry that emerged.

36:08Motel. And it's very hard for us to sit here today and say, okay, AI is going to destroy jobs, what's it going to create and be right. I think we're very likely going to be wrong, whatever estimations we give. The area that I think is most underestimated is the large technical projects that seem technically infeasible today that AI can unlock. For example, habitation in the oceans. Like, it's very difficult for us to envision like creating cities underwater and creating cities in the oceans or creating cities on the moon or creating cities on Mars or finding new places to live. Those are like, technically, people might argue, oh, that sounds stupid, I don't want to go do that.

36:43But at the end of the day, human civilization will drive us to want to do that. But those technically are very hard to pull off today. But AI can unlock a new set of industries to enable those transitions. So I think we really get it wrong when we try and assume the technology as a transplant for last year or last century, and then we kind of become technopesimists because we're worried about losing what we have. Are you a technopesimist or you optimist? Because you bring up the downside of a lot here on the program, but you are working every day in a very optimistic way to breed, you know, better strawberries and potatoes for folks.

37:16So you're a little bit of, no, I have no technopesimism whatsoever. I try and point out why the other side is acting the way they are. Putting it in full context. And what I'm trying to highlight is I think that that framework is wrong. I think that that framework of trying to transplant new technology to the old way of things operating is the wrong way to think about it. And it creates this, you know, because of this manifestation about worrying about downside, it creates this fear that creates regulation like we see in the EU. And as a result, China's GDP will scale while the EU's will stagnate if that's where they go.

37:47That's my assessment or my opinion on what will happen. And Tremoff, you want to wrap this up for us? What do you have on JD? I'll give you two. Okay. The first is I would say this is a really interesting moment where I would call this the tail of two vice presidents. Very early in the Biden administration, Kamala was dispatched on an equally important topic at that time, which was a legal immigration, and she went to Mexico and Guatemala. And so you actually have a really interesting A .B. test here. You have both vice presidents dealing with what were in that moment incredibly important issues and I think that JD was focused.

38:26He was precise. He was ambitious and even the Part of the press that was very supportive of Kamala couldn't find a lot of very positive things to say about her and the feedback was It was meandering, she was ducking questions, she didn't answer the questions that she was asked very well. And it's so interesting because it's a bit of a microcosm event to what happened over these next four years and her campaign quite honestly, which you could have taken that window of that feedback and unfortunately for her it just continued to be very consistent. So that was one observation I had because I I heard him give the speech, I heard her, and I had this kind of moment where I was like, wow, two totally different people.

39:13The second is on the substance of what JD said. I said this on Tucker, and I'll just simplify all of this into a very basic framework, which is if you want a country to thrive, it needs to have economic supremacy and it needs to have military supremacy. In the absence of those two things, society's crumble. And the only thing that underpins those two things is technological supremacy. And we see this today. So on Thursday, what happened with Microsoft? They had a $24 billion contract with the United States Army to deliver some whiz -bang thing. And they realized that they couldn't deliver it. And so what did they do?

39:55They went to Andral. Now, why did they go to Andral? because Andrew has the technological supremacy to actually execute. A few weeks ago, we saw some attempts at technological supremacy from the Chinese with respect to deep seek. So I think that this is a very simple existential battle. Those who can harness and govern the things that are technologically superior will win, and it will drive economic vibrancy and military supremacy, which then creates safe, strong societies. That's it. So from that perspective, JD nailed it. He saw the forest from the trees. He said exactly what I think needed to be said and put folks on notice that you're either on the ship or you're off the ship.

40:41And I think that that was really good. Yeah. And there was like a little secondary conversation that emerged, sacs that I would would love to engage you with if you're willing, which is this civil war quote unquote between maybe MAGAL 1 .0, MAGAL 2 .0, techies in the MAGAPARTY like ourselves. And maybe the core MAGAPOX, we can pull up the tweet here in JD's own word. And he's been engaging people in his own words. It's very clear that he's writing these tweets and distinct difference between other politicians and this administration, and they just tell you what they think. Here it is. I'll try and write something to address this in detail.

41:25This is JD Vance's suite. But I think the Civil War is overstated. Though yes, there are some real divergences between the populace. I would describe that as MAGA. And the techies. But briefly, in general, I dislike substituting American labor for cheap labor. My views on immigration and offshoring flow from this. I like growth and productivity gains. and this informs my view on tech and regulation when it comes to AI, specifically, the risks are number one overstate it to your point of all, or two difficult to avoid. One of my many real concerns for instance is about consumer fraud. That's a valid recent worry about safety.

42:03But the other problem is much worse if a peer nation is six months ahead of the US on AI. Again, I'll try and say more. And this is JD going right at, I think one of the more controversial topics, sacks, that the administration is dealing with and has dealt with when it comes to immigration and tech because these two things are dovetailing each other. If we lose millions of driver jobs, which we will in the next 10 years, just like we lost millions of cashier jobs, well, that's going to impact how our nation and many of the voters look at the border and immigration. We might not be able to let as many people immigrate here if we're losing millions of jobs to AI and self -driving cars.

42:46What do you thoughts on him engaging this directly, Sax? Well, the first point he's making there is about wage pressure, right? Which is when you throw up in our borders or you throw up in American markets to products that can be made in foreign countries by much cheaper labor that's not held to the same standards, the same minimum wage or the same union rules or the same safety standards that American labor is and has a huge cost advantage, then you're creating wage pressure for American workers. And he's opposed to that. And I think that is an important point because I think the way that the media or neoliberals like to portray this argument is that somehow mag is resistance to unlimited immigration is somehow basins xenophobia or something like that.

43:27No, it's based on bread and butter, kitchen table issues, which is if you have this ridiculous open -border policy, it's inevitably going to create a lot of wage pressure for people at the bottom of the pyramid. So I think JD is making that argument. But, and this is point two, he's saying I'm not against productivity growth. So technology is good because it enables all of our workers to improve their productivity, and that should result in better wages, because workers can produce more. The value of their labor goes up if they have more tools to be productive. So there's no contradiction there, and I think he's explaining why there isn't a contradiction.

44:05A point I would add, he doesn't make this point in that tweet, but I would add is that one of the problems that we've had over the last, I don't know, 30 years is that we have had tremendous productivity growth in the US, but labor has not been able to capture it. All that benefit has basically gone to capital or to companies. And I think a big part of the reason why is because we've had this largely unrestricted immigration policy. So I think if you were to tamp down on immigration, if you were to stop the illegal immigration, then labor might be able to capture more of the benefits of productivity growth.

44:38And that would be a good thing. It would be a more equitable distribution of the gains from productivity and from technology. And that I think would help tamp down this growing conflict that you see between technologists and the rest of the country, or certainly the heartland of the country. No, Vol, this is like, oh, you want to add anything else, David? Sorry. Well, I think just the final point he makes in that tweet is that he talks about how we live in a world in which there are other countries that are competitive. And specifically, he doesn't mention China B says, we have a peer competitor.

45:13And it's going to be a much worse world if they end up being six months ahead of us on ARR than six months behind. That is a really important point to keep in mind. I think that the whole Paris AI summit took place against the backdrop of this recognition because just a few weeks ago we had deep sea. And it's really clear that China is not a year behind us. They're on our heels or only maybe months behind us. And so if we hobble ourselves with unnecessary regulations, if we make it more difficult for our AI companies to compete, that doesn't mean that China's gonna follow a student copy us. They're gonna take advantage of that fact and they're gonna win.

45:48All right, Navale, this seems to be one of the main issues of our time for the five people on this podcast right now, our immigrants. So we have this amazing tradition in America. This is a country built by immigrants for immigrants. Do you think that should change now in the face of job destruction? Which I know you've been tracking self -driving pretty acutely. We both have an interest there. I think over the years, you know, what's the solution here if we're going to see a bunch of job displacement, which will happen for certain jobs. We all kind of know that. Should we shut the border and not let the next Naval, Chimap, Sax and Freeberg into the country?

46:28Well, let me declare my biases up front. I'm a first generation immigrant. I moved here when I was nine years old rather than my parents did and then I naturalized citizen. So obviously, I'm in favor of some level of immigration. That said, I'm assimilated. I consider myself an American first and foremost. I bleed red, white, and blue. I believe in the Bill of Rights on the Constitution, first and second and fourth and all the proper amendments. I get up there every July fourth and I deliberately defend the second amendment on Twitter, at which point half my followers go bananas. You know, because they're not supposed to.

47:04It's supposed to be a good immigrant, right? And carry the usual set of coherent leftist policies, globalist policies. So, I think that legal high -skill immigration with room and time for assimilation makes sense. You want to have a brain drain on the best and brightest coming to the freest country in the world to build technology and to help civilization move forward. And as Chimath was saying, economic power and military power is downstream of technology. In fact, even culture is downstream of technology. Look at what the birth control pill did, for example, to culture or what the automobile did to culture.

47:43Or what radio and television did to culture and then the internet. So technology drives everything. And if you look at wealth, wealth is a set of physical transformations that you can affect. And that's a combination of capital knowledge. And the bigger input to that is knowledge. And so the US has become the home of knowledge creation thanks to bringing the best and brightest. You could even argue deep -seek part of the reason why we lost that is because because a bunch of those kids, they studied in the US, but then we sent them back home. So I think you absolutely have to... Is that actually accurate?

48:11They were... Yeah, yeah, yeah, some of you with that. Really? Oh my God, that's like, exhibit A. Wow, I know. So I think you absolutely have to split skilled assimilated immigration, which is a small set. And it has to be both. They have to both be skilled and they have to become Americans. That oath is not meaningless, right? It has to mean something. So skilled assimilated immigration, You have to separate that from just open borders where we can wander in just come on in. That latter part makes those sense. If the Biden administration had only been letting M people with 150 IQs, we wouldn't have this debate right now.

48:44Yeah, absolutely. But the reason why we're having this debate is because they just opened the border and let millions and millions of people in. It was to their advantage to conflate legal and illegal immigration. So every time you would be like, well, we can't just open the borders and say, well, what about Elon? What about this? And they were just parade. If they were just letting out the key laws and the gentsons and free birds, we wouldn't be having the same conversation today. The correlation between open borders and wage suppression is irrefutable. We know that data. And I think that the Democrats for whatever logic committed an incredible error in basically undermining their core cohort.

49:25I want to go back to what you said because I think it's super important. There is a new political calculus on the field and I agree with you. I think that the three cohorts of the future are the asset light working in middle class. That's cohort number one. There are probably a hundred to a hundred and fifty million of those folks. Then there are patriotic business owners and then there's leaders in innovation. Those are the three. And I think that what MAGA gets right is they found the middle ground that intersects those three cohorts of people. And so every time you see this sort of left versus right dichotomy, it's totally miscast and it sounds discordant to so many of us because that's not how any of us identify.

50:15Right? And I think that that's a very important observation because the policies that we adapt will need to reflect those three cohorts. What is the common ground amongst those three? And on that point, Naval is right. There's not a lot that those three would say is wrong, with a very targeted form of extremely useful legal immigration of very, very, very smart people who agree to assimilate and be a part of America. I mean, I'm so glad you said it the way you said it. Like, I remember growing up where my parents were trying to pretend that they were in Sri Lanka. And sometimes I would get so frustrated.

50:49and I'm like, if you want to be in Sri Lanka, go back to Sri Lanka. I want to be Canadian because it was easier for me to make friends. It was easier for me to have a life. I was trying my best. I wanted to be Canadian. And then when I moved to the United States 25 years ago, I wanted to be American. And I feel that I'm American now and I'm proud to be an American. And I think that's what you want. You want people that embrace it. It doesn't mean that we can't dress up in a show walk amice every now and then. but the point is like, what do you believe? And here's your loyalty. Free bird, we used to have this concept of a melting pot of this assimilation.

51:28And that was a good thing. Then it became culture appropriation. We kind of made a right turn here. Where do you stand on this recruiting, the best and brightest, and forcing them to assimilate, making sure that they're down chasing. We're gonna find the people that we respect. Let me respect it. Yeah, let me respect it. I'll promise this whole conversation. Wait a minute, hold on. Look, I'm a first generation American who moved here when I was five and became a citizen when I was 10 and yes, I'm fully American and that's the only country I have any loyalty to. But the premise that I reject here is that somehow an AI conversation leads to an immigration conversation because millions of jobs are going to be lost.

52:09We don't know that. That's also true. You're making a huge assumption. I completely agree. into the doom or is that AI is going to wipe out millions of jobs. That is not. I think it's going to have evidence. I think it's going to have any jobs. Any jobs been lost by AI? Let's be real. We've had AI for two and a half years and I think it's great. But so far it's a better search engine and it helps high school kids cheat on their essays. I mean, can you don't believe that self -driving is coming? Hold on a second. Satch, you don't believe that millions, but hold on. Those driver jobs weren't even there 10 years ago, Uber came along and created all these driver jobs.

52:46So what technology does, yes, technology destroys jobs, but it replaces them with opportunities that are even better. And then either you can go capture that opportunity yourself or an entrepreneur will come along and create something that allows you to capture those opportunities. AI is a productivity tool. It increases the productivity of a worker. It allows them to do more creative work and less repetitive work. As such, it makes them more valuable. Yes, there is some retraining involved. But not a lot. These are natural language computers. You can talk to them in plain English. They talk back to you in plain English But I think David is absolutely right.

53:17I think we will see job creation by AI that will be as fast or faster than job destruction You saw this even with the internet like YouTube came along look at all these YouTube streamers and influencers I didn't used to be a job new jobs really opportunities because job is a wrong word job implies someone else has to give it to me And it's sort of like they're handed out to zero -sum game forget all that it's opportunities After COVID, look at how many people are making money by working from home in mysterious little ways on the internet that you can't even quite grasp. Here's the way I categorize it.

53:51Okay. Is that whenever you have a new technology, you get productivity gains. You get some job disruption, meaning that part of your job may go away, but then you get other parts that are new and hopefully more elevated, you know, more interesting. And then there is some job loss. I just think that the third category will follow the historical trend, which is that the first two categories are always bigger, and you end up with more net productivity and more net wealth creation. And we've seen no evidence today that that's not going to be the case. Now it's true that AI is about to get more powerful.

54:22You're going to see a whole new wave of what are called agents this year, a agentic product that they're able to do more for you. But there's no evidence yet that those things are going to be completely unsupervised and replace people's jobs. So, you know, I think that we have to see how this technology evolves. And I think one of the mistakes of let's call it the European approach is assuming that you can predict the future with perfect accuracy or such good accuracy that you can create regulations today that are going to avoid all these risks in the future. And we just don't know enough yet to be able to do that.

54:56That's a false level of certainty. I agree with you. and the companies that are promulgating that view is what Naval said. Those that have an economic vested interest in at least convincing the next incremental investor that this could be true because they want to make the claim that all the money should go to them so they could hoover up all the economic gains. And that is the part of the cycle we're in. So if you actually stratify these reactions, there's the small startup companies in AI that believe there's a productivity leap to be had and that there's going to be prosperity. Everybody on the sidelines watching, and then a few companies that have an extremely vested interest in them being a gay keeper because they need to raise a next 30 or 40 billion dollars trying to convince people that that's true.

55:40And if you view it through that lens, you're right, Sucks. We have not accomplished anything yet that proves that this is going to be cataclysmically bad. And if anything right now, history would tell you it's probably going to be like the past, which is generally productive and a creative design. Yeah, and just to bring it back to JD's speech, which is where we started, I think it was a quintessentially American speech in the sense that he said we should be optimistic about the opportunities here, which I think is basically right. And we want to lead. We want to take advantage of this. We don't want to hobble it.

56:14We don't even fully know what it's going to be yet. We are going to center workers. We want to be pro worker and I think that if there are downsides for workers then we can mitigate those things in the future But it's too early to say that we know what the program should be It's more about a statement of values at this point. Do you think it's too early freeberg given Optimus and all these robots being created what we're seeing in self -driving you've talked about the ramp up with Waymo To actually say we will not see millions of jobs and And millions of people get displaced from those jobs. What do you think, Freeberg?

56:52I'm curious, sure, of those. Because that is the counterargument. My experience in the workplace is that AI tools that are doing things that an analyst or a knowledge worker was doing with many hours in the past is allowing them to do something in minutes. That doesn't mean that they spend the rest of the day doing nothing. What's great for our business and for other businesses like ours that can leverage AI tools is that those individuals can now do more. And so our throughput, our productivity as an organization has gone up. And we can now create more things faster. So whatever the product is that my company makes, we can now make more things more quickly.

57:33We can do more development. You're seeing us on the ground, correct, Adahalo? And I'm seeing it on the ground. And I don't think that this like transplantation of how bad AI will be for jobs is the right framing as much as it is about an acceleration of productivity. And this is why I go back to the point about GDP per capita and GDP growth. Countries, societies, areas that are interested or industries that are interested in accelerating output and accelerating productivity, the ability to make stuff and sell stuff are going to rapidly embrace these tools because it allows them to do more with less.

58:06And I think that's what I really see on the ground. And then the second point I'll make is the one that I mentioned earlier, and I'll wrap up with a third point, which is I think we're underestimating the new industries that will emerge drastically, dramatically. There is going to be so much new sh** that we are not really thinking deeply about right now that we could do a whole another two -hour brainstorming session on what AI unlocks in terms of large -scale projects that are traditionally or typically are today held backed because of the constraints on the technical feasibility of these projects.

58:39And that ranges from accelerating to new semiconductor technology, to quantum computing, to energy systems, to transportation, to habitation, etc., etc. There's all sorts of transformations in every industry that's possible as these tools come online. And that will spur in saying new industries. The most important point is the third one, which is we don't know the overlap of job loss and job creation if there is one. And so the rate at which these new technologies impact and create new markets, but I think Nevolva is right. I think that what happens in capitalism and in free societies is that capital and people rush to fill the whole of new opportunities that emerge because of AI and that those grow more quickly than the old bubbles deflate.

59:21So if there's a deflationary effect in terms of job need in other industries, I think that the loss will happen slower than the rush to take advantage of creating new things will will happen on the other side. So my bet is probably on the order of I think new things will be created faster than all things will be lost. I think as a quick side note to that, the fastest way to help somebody get a job right now. If you know somebody in the market who's looking for a job, the best thing you can do is say, hey, go download the AI tools and start talking to them. Just start using them in any way. And then you can walk into any employer in almost any field and say, hey, I understand AI and they'll hire you in the spot.

59:58Naval, you and I watched this happen. We had a front row seat to it back in the day when you were doing venture hacks and I was doing Open Angel Forum. We had to fight in five or 10 companies a month, then the cost of running these companies went down. They went down massively from five million to start a company to two, then to 250Ks and to 100K. I think what we're seeing is like three things concurrently. You're gonna see all these jobs go away for automation, self -driving cars, cashiers, et cetera. But we're going to also see static team size at places like Google. They're just not hiring because they're just having the existing bloated employee base learn the tools.

1:00:37But I don't know if you're seeing this, the number of startups able to get a product to market with two or three people and get to a million in revenue is booming. What are you seeing in the startup landscape? It's definitely what you're saying in that there's leverage. But at the same time, I think the more interesting part is that new startups are enabled that could not exist otherwise. My last startup air chat could not exist without AI because we needed a transcription translation. Even the current thing I'm working on is not an AI company, but it cannot exist without AI. It is relying on AI.

1:01:08Even at Angelist, we're significantly adopting AI. Like everywhere you turn, it's more opportunity, more opportunity, more opportunity. And people like to go on Twitter or the artist formerly known as Twitter. And basically they like to exaggerate. Like, oh my god, we've hit AGI. Oh my god, I just replaced all my middle -level engineers. Oh my god, I've stopped hiring. To me, that's like moronic. The two valid ones are the one -man entrepreneurs shows where there's like one guy or one gal and they're scaling up crazy things to AGI. So can't prove. Sure. There are people who are embracing AIA and being like, I need to hire.

1:01:42And I need to hire anyone who can even spell AIA. Like anyone who's even used AIA. Just come on in, come on in. Again, I would say the easiest way to see that AI is not taking jobs with creating opportunities is go brush up on your AI, learn a little bit, watch a few videos, use the AI, tinker with it, and then go reapply for that job that rejected you and watch how they pull you in. In 2023, an economist named Richard Baldwin said, AI won't take your job. It's someone using AI that will take your job because they're not to use it better than you. And that's kind of become a meme and you see it floating around X, but I think there's a lot of truth in that.

1:02:17As long as you remain adaptive and you keep learning and you learn how to take advantage of these tools, you should do better. If you wall yourself off from the technology and don't take advantage of it, that's when you put yourself at risk. Another way to think about it is these are natural language computers. Everyone who is intimidated by computers before should no longer be intimidated. You don't need to program anymore in some esoteric language or learn some obscure mathematics to be able to use these. You can just talk to them and they talk back to you. That's magic. The new program language is English.

1:02:48Chamathi, you want to wrap us up here on this opportunity slash displacement slash chaos. I was going to say this before, but I'm pretty unconvinced anymore that you should bother even learning many of the hard sciences and maths that we used to as underpinnings. I used to believe that the right thing to do was for everybody to go into engineering. I'm not necessarily as convinced as I used to be because I used to say, well, that's great first principles thinking, et cetera, et cetera. And you're going to get trained in a toolkit that will scale. And I'm not sure that that's true. I think like you can use these agents and you can use deep research and all of a sudden they replace a lot of that scale.

1:03:31So what's left over? It's creativity, it's judgment, it's history, it's psychology, it's all of these other sort of like soccer. Leadership, communication. that allow you to manipulate these models in construct a ways because when you think of like the prompt engineering that gets you to great answers, it's actually just thinking in totally different orthogonal ways and non -linearly. So that's my last thought, which is it does open up the aperture, meaning for every smart mathematical genius, there's many, many, many other people who have high EQ. And all of a sudden, this tool actually takes the skill away from the person with just a high IQ and says, is if you have these other skills now, you can compete with me equally.

1:04:12And I think that that's liberating for a lot of people. I'm in the camp of more opportunity. I got to watch the movie industry a whole bunch when the digital cameras came out. And more people started making documentaries. More people started making independent films shorts. And then of course, the YouTube revolution people started making videos on YouTube or podcasts like this. And if you look at what happened with like the special effects industry as well, we need far fewer people to make a Star Wars movie, to make a Star Wars series, to make a Marvel series. As we've seen, now we can get the Mandalorian, a Shoka and all these other series with smaller numbers of people, and they look better than obviously the original Star Wars series or even the prequels.

1:04:55So there's gonna be so many more opportunities. We're now making more TV shows, more series, everything we wanted to see of every little character. That's the same thing that's happening in startups. I can't believe that there is a app now, a novel called Slopes, just for skiing. And there are 20 really good apps for just meditation. And there are 10 really good ones just for fasting. Like we're going down this long tail of opportunity and there'll be plenty of million to $10 million of businesses for us. You know, if people learn to use these tools. I love how that's the thing that tips you over.

1:05:31Which one? Yeah. You get an extra Marvel movie or an extra Star Wars show. So that tips you over. I mean, I think for a lot of people, it feels great. Yeah, I may take over the world, but I'm going to get an extra Star Wars movie. I'll bet it. So I'm going to get an extra Star Wars movie. I mean, are you not entertained? One final point on this is, look, I mean, it's given the choice between the two categories of Techno Optimists and Techno Pestimists. I'm definitely in the Optimist's camp. And I think we should be. But I think there's actually a third category that I would submit, which is techno realist, which is technology is going to happen.

1:06:06Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop. If we don't do it, somebody else will. China's going to do it or somebody else will do it. And it's better for us to be in control of the technology to be the leader rather than passively waiting for it to happen to us. And I just think that's always true. It's better for businesses to be proactive and take the lead, disrupt themselves, and set away for someone else to do it. And I think it's better for countries. And I think you did see this theme a little bit. I mean, these are my own views. I don't want to ascribe them to the vice president.

1:06:39But you did see, I think, a hint of the techno realism idea in his speech and in his tweet, which is, look, AI is going to happen. We might as well be the leader. If we don't, we could lose in a key category that has implications for national security, for our economy, for many things. So that's just not a world we want to live in. So I think a lot of this debate is sort of academic because whether you're an optimist or pessimist, a sort of glass half empty half full, the question is just, is it going to happen or not? And I think the answer is yes. So then we want to control it. This is, you know, let's just boil it down.

1:07:17There's not a tremendous amount of choice in this, I think. I would agree heavily with one point and I would just tweak another. The point I would agree with is that it's going to happen anyway and that's what DeepSeek proved. You can turn off the flow chips to them and you can turn off the flow of talent. What do they do? They just get more efficient and they exported it back to us. They sent us back the best open source model when our guys were staying close source for safety reasons. And that's exactly. And I think DeepSeek exploded. DeepSeek exploded the fallacy that the US has a monopoly.

1:07:49in this category and that somehow, therefore, we can slow down the train and that we have total control over the train. And I think what DeepSeek showed us, no, if we slow down the train, they're just going to win. Yeah, the part where I show a tweak a little bit is the idea that we are going to win. By we, when you say America, the problem is that the best way to win is to be as open, as distributed, as innovative as possible. If this all ends up in the control of one company, they're actually going to be slower to innovate than if there's a dynamic system. and that dynamic system by its nature will be open.

1:08:20It will leak to China, it will leak to India. But these things have powerful network effects. We know this about technology. Almost all technologies has network effects underneath. And so even if you are open, you're still going to win and you're still going to control all of them. You know, all you look at the internet, that was all true for the internet, right? The internet's an open technology is based on terms of open source. But who's the company? The company companies, all the dominant companies are US companies because they were in the lead. Exactly, right. Exactly, right. We embrace the open internet.

1:08:46We embraced the open internet, but that was different. Yeah, so there will be benefits for all of humanity. And I think the vice president's speech was really clear. That, look, we want you guys to be on board. We want to be good partners. However, there are definitely going to be winners economically, militarily. And in order to be one of those winners, you have to be a leader. Who's going to get to AGI first, Naval? Is it going to be an open source? Who's going to win? Is it going to be open source for closed source? Who's going to win the day? If we're sitting here five, ten years from now And we're looking at the top three language models, which is gonna be a lot of trouble for this, but I don't think we know how to build AGI, but that's a much longer discussion.

1:09:20Okay, put AGI aside, who's gonna have the best model five years old on? I 100 % agree with you. I just think it's a different thing, but what we're holding are these incredible natural language computers, and actually David, in a very pithy way, summarized the two big use cases. It's search and it's homeworks. It's paperwork. It's really paperwork. And a lot of research that we're talking about, disappearing are actually paperwork jobs. They're paperwork shuffling. These are made up jobs. Like, the federal government is we're finding out through doge. You know, third of it is like people digging holes and spoons and another third are filling them back up.

1:09:51They're filling out paperwork and then bearing it in a mineshaft. They're putting in a mineshaft, Niremountain. Yeah, so I think a lot of these made up jobs. And then they go down the mineshaft to get the paperwork when someone retires and brings it up. You know what? I'm going to get them some bum drives. We can increase the throughput of the elevator with some thumb drives. It would be incredible. What we found out is that the DMV has been running the government for the last 70 years. It's been a couple of months. That's really what's going on. The DMV's in charge. I mean, if the world ends in nuclear war, God forbid, the only thing that's be left will be the cockroaches and then a bunch of like government worker documents.

1:10:25TPS reports down on a mine shaft. Basically, yeah. Let's take a moment, everybody, to bank our czar. We miss them. We wish you could be here for the whole show and thank you, czar. Thank you to the czar. Thank you guys. All right guys. We miss you little buddy. I wish we could talk about Ukraine, but we're not allowed. Get back to work. We'll talk about it another time over. Call you taxi for a few. I'll see you in the commissary. Thanks for the invite. Bye. Man, I'm so excited. I'm Naval. Sacks inviting me to go to the military mass. I'm gonna be in the commissary. No, we didn't. Jake, you invited yourself, be honest.

1:11:02I did. Yes, I did. I put her on his calendar. To keep the conversation moving, let me segue a point came up that was really important in Da Tariffs. And the point is, even though the internet was open, the US won a lot of the internet. A lot of US companies won the internet. And they won that because we got there the firstest with the mostest, as they say in the military. And that matters because a lot of technology businesses have scale economies and network effects underneath. Even basic brand -based network effects. If you go back to the late 90s, early 2000, very few people would have predicted that that we would have ended up with Amazon basically owning all of e -commerce.

1:11:41You would have thought it would have been a perfect competition and very spread out. And that applies to how we ended with Uber as basically one taxi service, or we end up with... Airbnb. Meta, Airbnb, it's just network effects, network effects, network effects rule the world around me. But when it comes to tariffs, and when it comes to trade, we act like network effects don't exist. The classic Ricardian comparative advantage dogma says that you should produce what you're best at. I produce what I'm best at and we trade. And then even if you want to charge me more for it, if you want to impose tariffs for a me to ship to you, I should still keep tariffs down because I'm better off.

1:12:14You're just selling me stuff cheaply. Great. Or if you want to subsidize your guys great, you're selling me stuff cheaply. The problem is that is not how most modern businesses work. Most modern businesses have network effects. As a simple thought experiment, suppose that we have two countries, right? I'm China, you're the US. I start out by subsidizing all of my companies and industries that have network effects. So I'll subsidize TikTok. I'll ban your social media, but I'll push mine. I will subsidize my semi -conductors, which do tend to have winner take -all in certain categories, or I'll subsidize my drones, and then BYD.

1:12:49Exactly, BYD, self -driving, whatever. And then when I win, I own the whole market, and I can raise prices. And if you try to start up a competitor, then it's too late. I've got network effects. Or if I've got scale economies, I can lower my prices zero, crash you out of business. No one there right in mind will invest, and they'll raise prices right back up. So you have to understand that certain industries have hysteresis or they have network effects or they have economies of scale. And these are all the interesting ones. These are all the high margin businesses. So in those, if somebody is subsidizing or they're raising tariffs against you to protect your industries and let them develop, you do have to do something.

1:13:25You can't just completely back down. And as I was trying to say about tariffs and network effects, it does seem like like we do want to have redundancy and supply chain. So there are some exceptions here and the thoughts on how this might play out because, yeah, Trump brings up tariffs every 48 hours and then it doesn't seem like any of them land. So I don't know. I'm still on my 72 hour Trump rule, which is whatever he says, wait 72 hours and then maybe see if it actually comes to pass. Where do you stand on all these tariffs and tariff talk? Well, I think the tariffs will be a plug. Are they coming?

1:14:02Absolutely. The quantum of them, I don't know. And I think that the way that you can figure out how extreme it will be, it will be based on what the legislative plan is for the budget. So there's two pads right now, path one, which I think is a little bit more likely Is that they're gonna pass a slim down plan in the Senate just on border security and military spending And then they'll kick the can down the road for probably another three or four months on the budget. Plan two is this one big beautiful bill that's irking its way through the house. And they are, they're proposing truly as a dollars of cuts.

1:14:41In that mode, you're going to need to raise revenues somehow and especially if you're giving away tax breaks and the only way to do that is probably through tariffs or one way to do it is through tariffs. My honest opinion, Jason, is that I think we're in a very complicated moment. I think the Senate plan is actually on the margins more likely and better. And the reason is because I think that Trump is better off getting the next 60 to 90 days of data. I mean, we're in a real pickle here. We have persistent inflation. We have a broken Fed. They're totally asleep at the switch. And the thing that Yellen and Biden did, which in hindsight now was extremely dangerous is they issued so much short -term paper that in totality, we have $10 trillion we need to finance in the next six to nine months.

1:15:34So it could be the case that we have rates that are like five, five and a quarter, five and a half percent. I mean that that's extremely bad. At the same time as inflation, at the same time as delinquencies are ticking up. So So I think tariffs are probably going to happen, but I think that Trump will have the most flexibility if he has time to see what the actual economic conditions will be, which will be more clear in three, four, five months. And so I almost think this big, beautiful bill is actually counterproductive because I don't not sure we're going to have all the data we need to get it right.

1:16:18Priberg any thoughts on these tariffs you've been involved in the global marketplace, especially when it comes to produce and wheat and all the scorn and everything? What do you think the dynamic here is going to be? Or is it saber -attling in a tool for Trump? The biggest buyer of US AgExports is China. China. Age exports are a major revenue source, major income source, and a major part of the economy for a large number of states. And so there will be, as there was in the first Trump presidency, very likely, very large transfer payments made to farmers, because China is very likely going to tear us imports or stop making import purchases altogether, which is what happened during the first presidency.

1:17:04When they did that, the federal government, I believe, had transfer payments of north of $20 billion to farmers. This is a not negligible sum, and it's a not negligible economic effect because there's then a rippling effect throughout the ag economy. So I think that's one key thing that I've heard folks talk about is the activity that's going to be needed to support the farm economy as the U .S. is biggest ag customer disappears. In the early 20th century, we didn't have an income tax, and the federal revenue was almost entirely dependent on tariffs. When tariffs were cut, there was an expectation that there would be a decline in federal government revenue, but what actually happened is volume went up.

1:17:46So lower tariffs actually increased trade, increased the size of the economy. This is where a lot of economists take their basis in, hey guys, if we do these tariffs, it's actually going to shrink the economy, it's going to cause the reduction in trade. The counterbalancing effect is one that has not not been tested in economics, right? Which is what's going to happen if simultaneously we reduce the income tax and reduce the corporate income tax and basically increase capital flows through reduced taxation while doing the tariff implementation at the same time. So it's a grand economic experiment and I think we'll learn a lot about what's going to happen here as this all moves forward.

1:18:23I do think ultimately many of these countries are going to capitulate to some degree and we're going to end up with some negotiated settlement that's going to hopefully not be too short -term impactful on the economies and the people and the jobs that are dependent on trade. Economy feels like it's in a very precarious place. It does to asset holders. To asset holders. And obviously they've left it in a bad place in the last administration and we shut down the entire country for a year over COVID and the bill for that has come due and that's reflected in inflation. I think there are a couple other points in tariffs.

1:18:53First is it's not just about money. It's also about making sure we have functional middle class with good jobs because if you have a non -tariff world Maybe all the gains go to the upper class and an under class and then you can't have a functioning democracy when the average person is on one of those two extremes So I think that's one issue another is Strategic industries if you look at it today probably the largest defense contractor in the world is DJI They got all the drones even in Ukraine both sides are getting all their drone parts from DJI now they're getting it through different supply chains and so on.

1:19:25But Ukrainian drones and Russian drones of vast majority of them are coming through China, through DJI. And we don't have that industry. If we have a kinetic conflict right now and we don't have good drone supply chain internally in the US, we're probably going to lose because those things are autonomous bullets. That's the future of all warfare. We're buying F -35s and the Chinese are building swarms of net -scales. That scale. So we do have to re -insure those critical supply chains. And what does a drone supply chain? It's not just a thing called drone. It's like motors and semiconductors. So a lot of things and optics and lasers and just everything across the board.

1:20:01So I think there are other good arguments for at least reshoring some of these industries. We need them. And the United States is very lucky. And that is very autarkic. We have all the resources. We have all the supplies. We can be upstream of everybody with all the energy. Did the extent we're importing any energy? That is a choice we made. That is not because fundamentally we lacked the energy. Right. That's because of, we in all the oil resources and the natural gas and fracking combined with all the work we've done in nuclear efficient and small reactors, we should absolutely be energy in the country.

1:20:34We should be running the table on it. We should have a massive surplus. And hey, if you're worried about a couple of million of door dash Uber drivers losing their jobs to automation, like, hey, there's going to be factories to build of these parts for these drones that we're going to need. So there's a lot of opportunity, I guess, for people. And there is a difference between different kinds of jobs. Those kinds of jobs are better jobs, building difficult things at scale, physically, that we need for both national security and for innovation. Those are better jobs than paperwork, writing essays for the people to read, or even driving cars.

1:21:12All right, listen, I want to get to two more stories here. We have a really interesting copyright story that I wanted to touch on. and Thompson Reuters just won the first major USAI copyright case and Fair Use played a major role in this decision. This has huge implications for AI companies here in the United States. Obviously, open AI and the New York Times get images versus stability. We've talked about these, but it's been a little while because the legal system takes a little bit of time and these are very complicated cases as we've talked about Thompson Reuters owner's own West law. If you don't know that, it's kind of like Lexus Nexus.

1:21:49It's one of the legal databases out there that lawyers use to find cases, et cetera. And they have a paid product with summaries and analysis of legal decisions back in 2020. This is two years before chat GPT Reuters sued a legal research competitor called Ross for copyright infringement. Ross had created an AI -powered legal search engine. Sounds great. But Ross Ross had asked West Law if they would pay a license to its content for training. West Law said, no, this all went back and forth. And then Ross signed a similar deal with a company called Legal East. The problem is Legal East's database was just copied and pasted from a bunch of West Law answers.

1:22:27So Reuters, West Law sued Ross in 2020, accusing the company of being a carelessly liable for Legal East's direct infringement, super important point. Anyway, the judge originally favored Ross in fair use. This week the judge reversed this ruling and found Ross libel noting that after further review, fair use does not apply in this case. This is the first major win and we debated this. So here's a clip, you heard it here first on the All in Pod. What I would say is when you look at that fair use doctrine, I've got a lot of experience with it. The fourth factor test, I'm sure you're well aware of this, is the effect of the use on the potential market and the value of the work.

1:23:07If you look at the lawsuits that are starting to emerge, it is Getty's right to then make derivative products based on their images. I think we would all agree. Stable diffusion, when they use these open web, that is no excuse to use an open web crawler to avoid getting a license from the original owner of that. Just because you can technically do it, doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. In fact, the open web projects that provide these say explicitly, we do not give you the right to use this. you have to then go read the copyright laws on each of those websites and on top of that, if somebody were to steal the copyrights of other people, put it on the open web, which is happening all day long, you still, if you're building a derivative work like this, you still need to go get it.

1:23:47So it's no excuse that I took some site in Russia that did a bunch of copyright violation and that I indexed them for my training model. So I think this is going to result. Free bird. Free bird, can you shoot me in the face and let me know when you're selling to them? Okay. Oh great. So the same way. The same way now, exactly. I know me too. Yeah, good good segment. Let's move on. Well, since these guys don't give a sh** about copyright hold, they're just care about it. What do you think about? I'm so glad you're here, Naval, to actually talk about the topics these two other guys. We're gonna go to the original limb.

1:24:21I'm gonna go to even the original limb and say, I largely agree with you. I think it's a bit rich to crawl the open web, hover up all the data, offer direct substitution for a lot of use cases, because now you start an end with the AI model. It's not even like you'd link out like Google did. And then you just close off the models for safety reasons. I think if you trained on the open web, your model should be open source. Yeah, absolutely. So that would be a finding. I have a prediction here. I think this is all going to wind up like the NAPS for Spotify case. For people who don't know, Spotify pays, I think $65 on the dollar to the original underwriters of that content, the music industry.

1:24:58And they figured out a way to make a business and Napster is roadkill. I think that there is a non -zero chance. It might be 5 % or 10 % that opening eyes is going to lose the New York Times lawsuit. And they're going to lose it hard. And there could be injunctions. And I think the settlement might be that these language models, especially the closed ones, are going to have to pay some percentage in a negotiated settlement of their revenue half to thirds to the content holders. And this could make the content industry have a massive uplift and a massive resurgence. I think that the problem, there's an example on the other side of this, which is that there's a company that provides technical support for Oracle, third party company.

1:25:44and Oracle has tried umpteen times to sue them into oblivion using copyright infringement as part of the justification. And it's been a poll over the stock for a long time. The company's name is Rimini Street. Don't ask me why it's on my radar, but I just, I've been looking at it. And they lost this huge lawsuit Oracle one and then it went to a public court and then it was all vacated. Why am I bringing this up? I think that the legal community has absolutely no idea how these models work because you can find one case that goes one way and one case that goes the other and what I would say should become standard reading for anybody bringing any of these lawsuits.

1:26:25There's an incredible video that Carpathy just dropped that Andre just dropped where he does like this deep dive into LLMs and he explains chat GPT from the ground up, it's on YouTube, it's three hours, it's excellent. And it's very difficult to watch that and not get to the same conclusion that you guys did. I'll just leave it at that. I tend to agree with this. There's also a good old video by Ilya Sutskovur, where he was a, I believe, the founding chief scientist or CTO of OpenAI. And he talks about how these large language models are basically extreme compressors. and he models them entirely as their ability to compress and they're lost compression.

1:27:07Exactly. Lossy, lost a lost compression. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. And Google got sued for fair use back in the day, but the way they managed to get past the argument was they were always linking back to you. They said, yeah, I need to set you the traffic. Yeah, set you the traffic. This is losty compression. It is absolutely, I'm now on your pay. I hate to say this, Jason. I agree with you. Oh, you were right. I said, I wanted to hear all these years. I was shaking my head when I saw those videos because like, oh man, Jason was right. Jason was right. Oh my God. No, I just, I've been through this so many times that these, I think this is, you know, Rupert Murdock said we should hold the line with Google and not allow them to index our content without a license.

1:27:58And Google navigated it successfully and they were able to not get him to stop. I think what's happened now is that the New York Times remembers that. They all remember losing their content in the snippets and the one box to Google and they couldn't get that genie back in the bottle. I think the New York Times realizes this is their payday. I think the New York Times will make more money from licenses from LLMs than they will make from advertising or subscriptions eventually. This will renew the model. Almost. I think your time's content is worthless to an LLM, but that's a different story. I think they actually have a lot of content in different political reasons.

1:28:39But I can tell you as a user, I loved the wire cutter. I think you knew Brian and everybody over the wire cutter. We that was like searching in there. Yeah. Wire cutter. What a great product. I used to pay for the New York Times. I no longer pay for the New York Times. My main reason was I would go to the wire cutter. Yeah. And I would just buy whatever they call me to buy. Now I go to chatch .com which I pay for. And chatch .com tells me what to buy based on the wire cutter. So it's it and I'm already paying for it. So I stop paying for it. I philosophically disagree with all of your nonsense on this topic.

1:29:12All three of you are wrong. And I'll tell you why number one, if information is out in the internet, I believe it's accessible and it's viewable and I view an LLM or a web crawler as basically being a human that's reading and can store information in its brain can. If it's out there in the open if it's behind a paywall 100 % if it's behind some protected password wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, David Skrabik. And that in that case, Canon Google crawler just crawled entire site and served on Google. Why can't they do that? So here's the fair use. The fair use is you cannot copy, you cannot repeat the content, you cannot take the content and repeat that is how the buzz currently written, but now what I have is I have a tool that I can remix it with 50 other pieces of similar content and I can change the word slightly and maybe even translate into different language.

1:30:00So where does it stop? Do you know the musical artist, Girl Talk? We should have done a Girl Talk track. Here we go. He's got musical tastes. It's good. Here we go. He basically takes small samples of popular tracks and he got sued for the same problem. There was another guy named White Panda, I believe, had the same problem. Ed Sheeran got sued for this. Yeah, but the entire site's like Stack Overflin, and WikiHow that are basically disappeared now because you can just swallow them all up and you can just spit it all back out and chat GPT with slight changes. So I think that the first important test.

1:30:32But I think the fair use is how much of a slight change is exactly the right question. Yeah, it's how much are you changing? Yeah, so that's the question. And it actually boils down to the AGI question. Are these things actually intelligent, nor are they learning, or are they compressing and regurgitating? That's the question. I wonder this about humans, and that's why I bring up the white panda, the girl talk in audio, but also visual art. There was always artists, And even in classical music, I don't know if you guys are classical music people, but right, there was a demonstration of how one composer learned from the next and you can actually crack the music as kind of being standing on the shoulders of the prior.

1:31:06And the same is true in almost all art forms and almost all human knowledge. And maybe that's right. I think that's right. It's very hard to figure that out. Well, that's exactly right. That's a very hard to figure that out, which is why I come back to, there's only one of two stable solutions to this. And it's going to happen anyway. If we don't crawl it, the Chinese will crawl it. DeepSeek pulled that. So there's only one of two stable solutions. Either you pay the copyright holders, which I actually think doesn't work. And the reason is because someone in China will crawl it and they just dump the weights.

1:31:33Right. So they can just crawl and dump the compressed weights. Or if you crawl, make it open. At least contribute something back to open source. You crawl open data, contribute it back to open source. And the people who don't want to be crawled, they're going to have to go to a huge to let's protect their data. Now everybody knows to protect the data. Yeah, well, the licensing thing is happening here. I have a book out from Harper Business on the shelf behind me and I'm getting 2500 smack of rules for the next three years for Microsoft indexing it. So they're going out and they're licensing this stuff.

1:32:10And they're going $2 ,500. So you're literally I'm getting $2 ,500 for three years, a bunch of Harper to go into an LLM. to go into Microsoft specifically. And you know what, I'm gonna sign it, I decided, because I just wanna set the precedent, maybe next time it's 10 ,000, maybe next time it's 250, I don't care. I just wanna see people have their content respected, and I'm just hoping that Sam Waltman loses his lawsuit and they get an injunction against it. Hey, well, just because he's just such a weasel in terms of like making open air into a closed thing. I mean, I like Sam personally, but I think what he did was like the super weasel move of all time for his own personal benefit.

1:32:50If he, and this whole line, like, oh, I have no equity, I get health care. He doesn't know I get 10 percent. No, bro, he does it. But he does it. What was the statement? He does it for the, I do enjoy the benefit out of the benefits. I think he got health care. I think in OpenA has defense, they do need to raise a lot of money and they got to incent their employees. But that doesn't mean they need to take over the whole thing. That the nonprofit portion can still stay the nonprofit portion and get the lion's share the benefits and be the board and then he can have an incentive package as an employees can have an incentive package.

1:33:21Yeah, well, they get a percentage of the revenue. Absolutely. I don't understand why revenue goes to the top. Right now for 40 billion and then the whole thing disappears into a closed system. That part makes no sense to me. That's called a shell game and a scam. Yeah, I think Sam and his team would do better to leave the nonprofit part alone, leave an actual independent nonprofit board in charge and then have a strong incentive plan and a strong fundraising plan for the investors and the employees. So I think this is workable. It's just trying to grab it all. It just seems way off, especially when it was built on open algorithms from Google, open data from the lens, and on a nonprofit funding from Elon and others.

1:33:58I mean, what a great proposal, I believe, which is workshopped here. What if they just, what if they make six billion a year, just take 10 % of it, 600 million every year, and that goes into a bonus. They're losing money, Jason. So they have to... Okay, eventually... But even equity they could they could give equity to the building. Sure, but they could still leave it in the control of the nonprofit. I just don't understand this conversion. Well, I mean, there was a there was a board coup, right? The board tried to fire Sam and Sam took over the board. Now it's his hand pick board. So it's also self -dealing, right?

1:34:28And yeah, they'll get an independent valuation. But we all know that game. You hire a valuation expert is going to say what you're going to say. And they'll take a box by box. If you're going to capture the light cone of all future value or build super intelligence, you know, it's worth a lot more. That's why Elon just bit a hundred billion. Exactly. You're saying you're saying the things that actually the regulators and the legal community have no insight because they'll see a fairness opinion and they think oh, it says fairness and opinion two words. I decided must be fair and they don't know how all of this stuff is So yeah, yeah, I've got stories about 409As that would exactly Yeah, these fairness opinions are games, but the reality is I don't think the legal and the judicial community has any idea.

1:35:12I mean, imagine if a founder you invested in just as just a total imaginary situation of all had like a great term sheet at some incredible dollar amount didn't take it, ran the valuation down to like under a million, gave themselves a bunch of shares, and then took it three months later. Well, I don't know, what would that be called? Is that a problem? Security's for all? Yeah, let's wrap on your story. I had an interesting Nick will show you the photo. I had an interesting dinner on Monday with Brian Johnson, the don't die guy. Came over to my house. How's his erection doing overnight? What we talked about is he's got three hours a night of nighttime erections.

1:35:50Wow, look at this. By the way, first of all, I'll tell you I think that I think that he's Which one of those is giving him the erection? No, no, he measures his nighttime or action. I think who is giving him the erection? But he said that when he started so by the way, he said he's he was 43 when he started this thing He was basically clinically obese. Yeah, and in these next four years has become a specimen He now has three hours a night of nighttime erections, but that's not the interesting thing At the end of this dinner, by the way, his skin is incredible. I was not sure because when you see the pictures online, but his skin in real life is like a porcelain doll.

1:36:30I've both my wife and I were like, we've never seen skin like this. And it's incredibly soft. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, how do you know skin and soft? You know, you brush your hand against this forearm or whatever, you know, it gives a hug at the end of the night. I'm telling you the guy who has a had supple skin, bro, it's a soft skin, I've ever touched in my life. Anyways, that's not the point. It was really fascinating, Ditter. He walked through his whole protocol, but at the end of it, I think it was Neckash, the CEO of Apollo Alter Network, he was just like, give me the top three things.

1:37:03Top three. And of the top three things, what I'll boil it down to is the top one thing, which is like 80 % of the 80%. It's all about sleep. I was about to get asleep. And he walked through his nighttime routine and it's incredible and it's straight forward. It's really simple. It's like how you do a wind down. Anyways, I have tried to explain the wind down. Briefly. Let's just say that because Brian goes a bit much earlier. So our normal time, let's just say, you know, 10, 10, 30. So my time I try to go to bed by 10, 30. He's like, you need to be in bed. You need to first of all stop eating three or four hours before, right?

1:37:38And I do that. I eat at 6 .30. So I have about three hours. You're in bed by 930 or 10. You deal with the self -talk, right? Like, okay, here's the active mind telling you all the things you have to fix in the morning. Talk it out, put it in its place, say, I'm going to deal with this in the morning. Write it down in the journal, you're saying, whatever you do. So that you put it away. You cannot be on your phone. That's got to be in a different room. You just got to be able to shut it down and then read a book so that you're actually just engage in something and and and he said that he typically falls asleep within three to four minutes of getting into bed and starting.

1:38:16What? I tried it. So I've been doing it since I had dinner with him on Monday. Last night I fell asleep within 15 minutes. Hmm. The hardest part for me is to put the phone away. I can't do it. Of course. Of course. What about you? I'll tell a sure one down. Oh yeah. I know. So I know I know Brian pretty well actually and I joke that I'm married to the female Brian Johnson because my wife is Some of his routines, but she's like the natural version no supplements and she's intense and I think when Brian saw my sleep score from my Eight sleep he was sure he was just like you're gonna die. He's like you're literally gonna die Seventy -eighting though.

1:38:56It's terrible. It's awful, but it's okay. I don't know what your number what your number It was like his 30s 40s, but yeah, but it's also because I don't sleep much I only sleep a few hours a night and I also move around a lot and the bed and so on. But it's fine. I never have trouble falling asleep, but I would say that Brian's skin care routine is amazing. His diet is incredible. He is a genuine character. I do think a lot of what he's saying minus a supplement. I'm not a big believer in supplements. Yeah. Does work. I don't know if it's naturally going to slow down your aging, but you'll look good and you'll feel good.

1:39:27Yeah, sleep is the number one thing. In terms of falling asleep, I don't think it's really about whether you look at your phone or not, believe it or not. I think it's about what you're doing on your phone. If you're doing anything that is cognitively stressful or getting your mind to spin, then yes. But like you can just scroll, tick, talk and follow, see, it's fine. Anything that's entertaining or that is like you can read a book right under Kindle or in your iPad and I think it'd be fine falling asleep or you can listen to like some meditation video or some spiritual teacher something and that'll actually help you fall asleep.

1:40:00But if you're on X or if If you're checking your email, then heck yeah, that's going to keep you up. So my hack for sleep is a little different. I normally fall asleep within minutes. And the way I do it is I, you all have a meditation routine. You have a set time. You have a set time now? No, no, I sleep whenever I feel like. Usually around one in the morning, two in the morning. God damn, how did that by 10? Yeah, I need to sleep. I'm an owl. But if you want to fall asleep, the hack I found is everybody has tried some kind of a meditation routine. just sit and bed and meditate. And your mind will hate meditation so much that if you force it to choose between the fork of meditation and sleeping, you will fall asleep.

1:40:39Well, sorry. Well, okay, so I'm trying to go fall asleep. You'll end up meditating, which is great too. So I just like the meditation. The code of the body skin. The code of the story was a friend of mine came to see me from the UAE. And he was here on Tuesday and I was telling him about the dinner with Brian. And he told me the story because he's friends with Kabeeb, the UFC fighter. And he says, you know, when Kabeed goes to his house, he eats anything and everything. Fried food, pizza, whatever. But he trains consistently. And my friend, Adala says, how are you able to do that? And how does it not affect your physiology?

1:41:13He goes, I've learned since I was a kid. I sleep three hours after I train in the morning. And I sleep 10 hours at night. And I've done it since I was like 12 or 13 years old. That's a lot of sleep. It's a lot of sleep. I, you know, the direct correlation for me is if I do something cognitively like, you know, big heavy duty conversations or whatever, so no heavy conversations at the end of the night, no existential conversation at the end of the night. And then if I go rocking, I have the, you know, on the ranch, I put on a 35 pound weight vest. I would have had a night before you go to bed. No, no, no.

1:41:47If I do it anytime during the day, I typically do it in the morning or the afternoon, but the one to two mile rock with the 35 pounds, whatever it is, it just tires my whole body out. So that when I do lay down, is that why you don't prepare for the pod? You know, I mean, this pod is the top 10 p*** pot in the world, Chema. Do you think it's an accident? Freeberg, what's your sleep routine? Can you just go to bed? You just like, I'm like taking warm bath and I send Jake out a picture of my feet. Oh wait till Jake out of them. I do take a nice warm bath. I nailed it. But you do it every night, a warm bath?

1:42:26I do, yeah, I do a warm bath every night. With candles too. And do you do it right before you go to bed? Yeah, I usually do it after I put the kids down and I'll basically start to wind down for bed. I do watch TV sometimes, but I do have the problem and the mistake of looking at my phone probably for too long before I turn lights off. So do you have a consistent time when you go to bed or not? Usually 11 a .m. at night and then up at 6 .30. Man, I need eight hours of the boys on the mess. I'm trying to get eight. I hit between six and seven. Consistently, I try to go to bed that 11 to 1 a .m.

1:43:02window and get up the seven to eight window. My problem is if I have work to do, I'll get on the computer or my laptop. And then when I start that after in my evening routine, I can't stop. And then all of a sudden, it's like three in the morning and I'm like, oh no, what what did I just do? And then I still have to get up at 6 .30. So that does happen to me. So last night was unusual for me, but it was kind of funny anyway. I thought, oh, I should go to bed early because I'm on all in. Yeah. But I ended up eating ice cream with the kids late. Wait, what was the brand? You say you went for another brand.

1:43:33I wanna know the brand. I think it's Van Lewin or something like that. Van Lewin, yeah. Van Lewin, yeah. Of course. Yeah, that is good. That is good. The holiday cookies and cream. Oh my God, so good. Yeah, it's so good. Van Lewin, I'm gonna polish that off. Then I was like, oh, I probably ate too much to go to bed. So I better work out so I did a kettlebell workout You sound like Shaman. What did you say? I've ate kettlebells right here right now. Oh, yeah. Freeberg, this is called working out freeberg. And then while I'm doing my kettlebell suitcase carry, I was texting with an entrepreneur friend So you can tell how intense my workout was and he's in Singapore so it was in the middle of the night for me and early for him.

1:44:15And then it was time to go to bed. I was like, okay, now I've got to get to bed. How do I get to bed? I'm, my body's all amped up. I've got food in my stomach. That's a pain. My brain is all amped up. And all in podcasts is tomorrow. And what time is it's one, 30 in the morning? I better get to bed. So I put on like a little one of those spiritual videos to calm me down. And then I just, and then I got in bed and I was like, there's no way I'm falling asleep and I started meditating and five minutes later I was asleep. You know, actually the Dalai Lama has these great on his YouTube channel, he's got these great like two hour discussions.

1:44:51You get about 20, 30 minutes into that, you will fall asleep. Well, yeah, my learning is, you know, watch any Dharma lecture from the SS editor. Exactly, exactly. And my lesson is, my learning is that the mind will do anything to avoid meditation. Yes, by the way, did you guys see just before we wrap? Did you see all the confirmations? RFK Jr. confirmed. Brook Rollins confirmed. By the way, if you look at Polymarket, Polymarket had it all right a couple of weeks ago. I was trying to call it a rush. There was a moment where two months ago, to like 56%, there was a moment when RFK felt to 75%, but then they bounced back and it was done.

1:45:27You could have asked that man. You could have made money. Yeah, Polymarket had it. And the media was like, no way he's getting confirmed. This is not going to happen, but Polymarket knows. It's so interesting, huh? Well, I love Polymarket. insightful tweet and I forget who wrote it so I'm sorry I can't give credit. But the guy basically said, look, Trump has a narrow majority in the House and the Senate. And he can get everything he wants as long as the Republican stay in line. So all the pressure and all the anger that all the Megan movement is doing against the left is pointless. It's all about keeping the right wing in line.

1:46:03So it's all the people saying to the senators, hey, I'm going to primary use Nicole Shanahan saying, I'm going to primary you. It's Scott Prestor saying, I'm moving to your district. That's the stuff that's moving the needle and causing the confirmations to go through. That's how you get cash but tell. That's how you get to see Gabber, the DNI. That's how you get RFG. You worry about any of these. You think any of them are too spicy for your taste or you just like the whole burn it down, put in the crazy like outsiders and like that. That's such a bad characterization. That's not a fair characterization.

1:46:33I mean, the outsides. Honestly, it's like, I never thought I'd see it, but I think between Elon and Sacks and people like that, we actually have builders and doers and financially intelligent people and economically intelligent people in charge. And, you know, despite all the craziness, Elon's not doing this for the money. He's doing it because he thinks that the right thing to do is to move them to the Rose Vola. But I think the next thing was, I had bought into the great forces of history mindset, where it's just like, okay, it's inevitable. This is what's happening. Government always gets bigger, always gets slower.

1:47:02Yeah, me too. And we just have to try and get stuff built before they just shut everything down and we turn to Europe. But the thing that happened then was, you know, Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The great man theory of history played out and we're living in that time. And it's an inspiration to all of us, despite Sam Altman and Elon's current fighting. I know Sam was inspired by Elon at one point. And I think all of us are inspired by Elon. I mean, the guy can be the Diablo player and do doge and run SpaceX and Tesla and boring and neural ink. I mean, it's incredibly impressive. It makes us, that's why I'm doing a hardware company now.

1:47:35It makes me want to do something useful with my life. Elon always makes me question, am I doing something useful enough with my life? It's why I don't want to be an investor. Peter Till ironically, he's an investor, but he's inspirational that way too, because he's just like, yeah, the future just doesn't just happen, you have to go make it. So we get to go make the future, and I'm just glad that Elon and Doge and others are making a future that I'm looking for. Where, what the, what have we got going on here? I'll give you a little hint. and podcasts in a couple of months. But it's really hard.

1:48:03It's really difficult. I'm not sure I can pull it off. So let me try. Let me just make sure it's biodegraded. Is it drone related? Is it self -driving? drone drones are cool, but no, it's not. Maybe all podcasts should be an angel investor. Oh yeah, that's too exciting. Let's do a little bit of free stock. No, no, Cindy Kitchen. Just our money. You know how I learned about Cindy Kitchen was no val. The first Cindy that I ever did on Angel List, I think it's still the biggest. I don't know. I'm gonna go five percent and involves my partner on this for calm .com. I think you'll love what I'm working on if I pull it off.

1:48:34I think you guys will love it. I'd love to show you a dentist. Let us know where to send the check. Get that big cherry chip, Van Lohen. I love you guys. What have we learned? I gotta go. Okay. Big shout out to Bobby and Tiltalsey. That's a huge huge huge huge for America. I'm stoked about both of them. Congratulations. I love me so much. The ball thinks for C'mon. That's for Kennedy. C'mon, Kennedy back on the ball. Let's get Bobby Bobby come back on the pod for the Zarr David Sacks Your Sultan of science David Freeberg the chairman dictator Jamal Pahapatita Pahapatia and Namaste Nava I am the world's greatest moderate.

1:49:15I will see you next time on the all -in -pun Namaste bitches

1:49:27We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with I'm going to be a queen of kinwap I'm going to be a queen of kinwap

1:49:48What what? vesties are Should What?

1:49:59Were limbsłe

1:50:06I'm going on a lead.

1:50:13I'm going on a lead.