Trump AI Speech & Action Plan, DC Summit Recap, Hot GDP Print, Trade Deals, Altman Warns No Privacy

24:31And he came out and he went right at me. He was like, hey, you treated me like, boom, at the thing, we had a big debate. And he went right at me. And then I was like, okay, it's on. We want to talk about stuff. And he said, yeah, let's get into it. And that's what I love about JD. JD to me seems like the politician of the future. I know this is like the Trump's administration. He doesn't say like him. Absolutely. No, no, I'm in like with Trump. I'm in love with JD because he's young. He's opinionated and he likes to mix it up. He's on Twitter all day long. He engages people on Twitter. He engages people in other groups.

25:05I'll leave it at that. And we had a really, I think, honest discussion about immigration. And we got back to the high skilled immigration question. That's the third rail for MAGA and for the country right now, immigration recruiting. I mean, you brought it up right off the bat. No, no. He said he wanted to talk about it. No, you brought it up. No, no, no. He said, I want to continue the debate. And I said, OK, let's continue the debate. So here we go. He was super spicy. And he made a great, super spicy point that I want to point out here on Amplify. If companies are going to be laying people off, and there was an incredible chart that came out and was in the financial times, and they showed mail college graduates versus non -college graduate males.

25:48And there was usually a huge gap in unemployment between those two. In other words, if you had the college degree, you had a much better chance than the non -college degree male. And now those two things have flipped, or they're like neck and neck. If you have a college degree, you have no advantage as a man coming out in this 20 to 27 year old range. This is men, women are actually doing better, more women in college than men, yada yada. But he's very attuned to this. And he said he's got big concerns right now. So this is, again, why I love JD, because JD is very tuned into the fact that people are asking for more H1B visas, and that typically is to save money and supposed to be a very scopeable.

26:29But why is Microsoft going off 9 ,000 people than asking for more H1B visas? This is a really honest, truth seeking question. And it's hard for this administration to talk about this issue, because I know you got Steve Miller, batting whatever people all the way on one side who wanted to port 20, 30 million people, Tucker, and then you have other people who are more moderate. I thought that was a really great moment in time for America and for us as a podcast to challenge and have a really important discussion And he made some great points there Number two, we had a great debate I think about energy No, disagree You disagree I disagree with the, because I think you challenged him with, I think you challenged him with things that were not facts and not true And I'm happy to debate that with you Great stuff, he was caught off guard But I think it was pretty like rough and inappropriate 100 P if you think is it appropriate that's fine.

27:19I was favorite moments were all the ones where he got bad. The ones where we had to get that's what you're describing. No, no, where there were debates when you got into it with the vice president, you got into it with the Secretary of Energy. There's your fair moments when you got to. Okay, great. So, okay, fine. I like when there's a little conflict, a little debate about an important issue. And when I walk the audience, which was, you know, 90 % Republican GOP MAGA, etc. people said that was a great moment. I really liked that debate because he kept saying like non reliable energy and whatever and I was like, he's talking about solar and I think there was a little misinformation there.

27:54No, it's not. It's infertility. You put it with a battery right now, Texas is 30 % some days wind and energy. You know, like I could tell you I live in the right state of Texas. Texas is a Texas is not doing that. Texas is not doing that. Texas is roughly 5 % solar. Right. And wind puts it up to 25 to 30 % on the top days is coming from that. my point about that is, and it's cheaper to put in a solar and add a new coal plant. It is 100%. We can pull up the stats. It is twice the cost to do solar than it is to do Nat gas. It takes 4 ,000 acres. I said coal. I said coal. I said coal. No one said coal.

28:30The big advocacy with these guys is to use Nat gas to use methane. He would say, and he's methane coal, clean coal, clean coal. He said it 50 times. These methane plants are half the cost of solar. They can get stood up in less than two years, absolutely. Generated gigawatt. And instead of being 4 ,000 acres of solar, you can get it done for, you know, call it 20 acres. Now, talk a little bit about pollution. And that's a big part of why they're doing this. Well, a big part of methane is that it's actually cleaner than coal, which is why they're using a container of oil and nuclear. Cleaner than oil.

29:01And the two degrees of getting energy. Now science guy now do. So I'm trying to get a fact about why it is cheaper and faster, which is what he was making an advocacy for, right? It's not about like solar, yes, you're right. It has a lower carbon footprint when you're running it. But at the end of the day, what these guys are focused on and a big challenge for America is how do we scale energy production in the states? And scaling energy production, I personally think we need to fix the regulatory roadblocks in nuclear and Chris Wright's been very vocal on this. But the fact is this NatGAS supply that we have in the United States and the fact that we can deploy NatGAS energy production very quickly is what makes it such a reliable source right now if the US wants to have a chance at scaling from one terro -walk to two faster than your target.

29:47I think we do need to. It's not about like solar being bad, solar is bad. That's not the argument. It's just like, dude, we gotta get moving fast and we gotta have reliable energy. I just want to point down and be at the half. I just want to point in our debates when there's bad faith moments. I think it's a bad faith moment for when I say coal versus solar. And then you say, no you're wrong. It's solar versus Nat gas. And that's what he was doing. This is what politicians do. You're on all in. We like to do, you know, a fact -based truth first stuff, not buy stuff. And so solar, you're comparing, you know, solar and how fast it is versus how fast it is to go to Nat gas.

30:24Of course, it's faster to go to Nat gas if we have those available. Let's put that aside. It's an important debate. The fact that you and I are debating it is important. And I also thought Lisa from AMD was fantastic. I haven't heard from her. By the way, I just want to point out that when I got back to the conference, so I left for a time to go back to the White House and then I came back. The first thing everyone said to me when I got back was, did you see Jake Al being a jerk to Chris Wright? Everyone was like, all this is about that. Yeah, a jerk. He's a civil servant. He has to answer hard questions.

30:57You didn't talk to him in the way that you would. Basically everyone was like, you were a jerk to Chris Wright. and you are kind of a jerk to JD. And what are your favorite moments? Call me an ass. What are your favorite moments from the conference? You're reminiscing about. I'm not saying you were an asshole to me. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Anyway, the point is, one thing you're gonna get here at the all in. I'm all right. This is what I'm gonna say. I'm gonna say this. I'm gonna say this. I'm gonna say this. You're almost derailed the whole thing. No, we are derailed it. You're a silver servant, Mr.

31:29Sachs. You're a silver servant. You're all silver. Yeah, I've been putting out with you for five years of this podcast. I was perfect training for government services. Beyond the podcast being interrupted by you for five years. Yes. That's why I'm so ready. Well, you were for us. All of you and you're all going to take our questions and you're all going to take our questions on September 7th, 8th and 9th when we have the all in summit in philosophy. By the way, by the way, one thing I'll say is Chris Rice chief of South care to me afterwards and I said, I'm sorry I heard Jake, I was a jerk to to secretary right.

32:05He's like, oh no, Chris loved it. He loves mixing it up. Okay. And he's coming to he's coming to on some it in on September 8th. So can't wait to debate more. So can't wait to mix it up more. So he likes mixing it up. So kudos to him. Okay. And so did so did JD Vance, the vice president to you. Stop calling JD by the way. Well, I mean, listen, I just I just want to say Vice President JD Vance and I have been directly communicated. We have a we yes, no you have it. David Sacks your worst nightmare. Oh my God. Your worst nation is ruined. What the fuck we let Jake Allen to Washington and now look what's happening.

32:43Yes. And listen, I want to level set with everyone. We I am going to ask whatever fucking question I want to whatever guest we have and nobody stopping. The only way you're going to stop me is by writing me a huge fucking check to buy me out of this podcast and replacing me with some mid. Or if the secret service keeps you off stage, which might be an option. Or secret service keeps up saying, but the truth is this is one of the great things about this administration, sex is that they love to mix it up. They like great debate. You know who didn't like great debate and ran from it? Kamala Madinggon.

33:16She wouldn't even come on the podcast. You know who doesn't like debate? We get that Bernie's Biden. didn't even know what a podcast is. Tim Walsh, who doesn't know. You definitely have your moments, but Tim Walsh doesn't own an equity. He clearly doesn't own one share of any company. He doesn't own his home and Kim Walsh is on there, giving a hard time about the Trump savings accounts. I mean, I don't even know if that's a fucking doc. Yeah, it was a Kim Walsh, though. What you love, do you thought that was going in the election? Well, I thought you might be able to speak to like the middle of America.

33:50And then I find out like when they do the deep op -o research that the guy doesn't own one stock, the guy doesn't own his home. He's financially illiterate and we're making the right poison. He's been employed by the government. He's been employed by the government. It's whole life. I mean, have you? There it is. There it is. That's what Jake thought would win them the election. You're never going to live that down. I remember when you tweeted you thought that was it. You thought that was the master stroke. I thought it. The master that was going to win them the election. Listen, no stricanis does not bad a thousand.

34:22No stric, no even no stricanis cannot bad a thousand. But it did come out by the way. That Nancy Pelosi wanted to do the speedrun primer. I don't know if you saw that just not to rehash too much stuff. Sacks, I want to say there was one point of difference if you want to get into it. Okay. We found the content part of it where, and this is something that the press was having a field day with and they really keyed on, which was, hey, respecting IP, respecting copyright, what's the feedback been so far on that, which was a pretty spicy part of President Trump's speech? Well, I think what the president said was just very pragmatic.

35:00He said we had to have a common sense approach towards intellectual property. And he said, if you have to make a deal with every single article on the internet, every every single website, every single book, every piece of IP, in order to train an AI model, it wasn't feasible. He said, look, I appreciate the work that went into people creating these works, but you're not able to negotiate a deal for every single one of them. And if we require our AI models to do that, and China doesn't, and they won't, they're just training on everything, whether it's pirated or not, then we're gonna lose AI race.

35:36So I think he took the side of a fair use definition. I don't know if he used the term fair use, but effectively he was taking the side of a reasonable fair use. What did you think of that part, Dave? Friber? You have any thoughts or charm on that part? I think he's absolutely right. I've said this before. If something's in the internet, if something's in the open domain, and I strongly disagree with the idea that AI getting trained is the same as AI replicating copyright material. If AI outputs pets, pets, or outputs audio or outputs video that contains copyright material, it is 100 % in violation of copyright.

36:13And he said that, by the way. Yes. And if the AI is learning, it is understanding patterns, it is understanding reasoning, it is understanding concepts by reading copyright material, just like humans do. A writer, an author reads a bunch of fiction, learns good techniques, learns good concepts, learns good theory from reading all those books. and then goes and writes his or her own book, they are not violating copyright material. And the same way that they are freeberg. What if it's all the New York Times content? If it's behind the opening turn, 100%, you're 100 % correct, that should be paid for or licensed.

36:47I'm talking about the open internet. I'm talking about open material. I'm talking about stuff that's in the open domain. What's this? There's a thing called common problem. If there was, if somebody stole 100 books, let's say, and put them on their website and it was a pirated Russian website with a thousand books on it and you accidentally crawled it you would be obligated to take that out that That's correct. Correct. Okay. Correct. Because that's what a lot of the lawsuits around so I think we're reaching something I just want to say you know, this is such an important point especially to me as a content creator and somebody who spent his career in this I've been thinking about the end game and I was I'm here in Park City.

37:23I was just giving this a keynote and I wanted to show you something I made a sacks because I think we have to get to the end game here. So in my talk, I talked a little bit about how can we get through this fight and then maybe getting to a solution. So I had my team mock up the New York Times website here and chat GPT doing a deal with them. So here you see you're on the New York Times website and you ask it a question powered by GPT. You ask it, hey, you might ask this question. In fact, you log in with your chat GPT credentials. You're, and it could be GROC, it could be Gemini. Give me the earliest mentions of Putin.

37:59You know, if you were a fan of Putin or something, and it would then go through that and give you your Putin references. And then I made another one. And then obviously this would be an exclusive to chat GPT. It would be one of those things where, you know, they get exclusive. And then here on the Disney Plus channel, imagine you could make yourself into a Jedi Knight and you could then upload your photo. You know, kids might really get into this. You upload your photo. you can make, you talked about this free burn a couple times of the future of narrative, storytelling, up your photo, and then it makes you into a Jedi night.

38:28There's, there's Dorothy, Calcannus. So, that looks to me like you're infringing on their trademark. What's that? Are you infringing on their, their copyright? This is fair use. This is fair use. Is the perfect example of fair use for editorial. You're also infringing on some ozempic. That's a really scary thing. Trust me. I am definitely infringing on some ozempic. You're, guys, I'm, test those things. I'm onto peptides now, man. I'm on the Wolverine product costs. So look at you. Yeah, I started doing the, I mean, I don't think what could go wrong. Don't take a pot. Don't take a pot. Chessers advice on your healthcare rule number one.

39:07Take Chimaltz advice because he's got a 6 % body fat, which I think attributes to much of your pomp and circumstance around your privates. I think it has to do with the lack of fat, but I'm going to leave it at that. First of all, it's 11 and a half, but you know, it that's like that's like that's like right before I go on summer vacation And it ends up at 12 or 13. Did you go get that? Did you go get that gelato? What was that place? We went that we love all of me I've gone there every day every day so far. Did you do two or one? Be honest two or bro I've had I've had I've been doing no procession.

39:39Do you do two or one being a process to I start with the medium and then I finish with a small Exactly. You got this stuff is so good. I've never tasted any gelato like this. It's incredible. I mean, just unbelievable We have to license it for the United States. It's all in brand. We have to license it from them It's really great. But you're not just generally speaking or anybody who wants to have added Friedberg sacks What do we think about the end game here because there's some major lawsuits here? They're gonna get settled in the next year or two. What do we think about? Sort of the future I've shown here today.

40:09I think what sacks is highlighted is exactly right look We got to have a commonsense approach here or we're going to lose the AI race. I mean, one of the key determinants of AI quality is the amount of data that you have. It's very simple, right? There's a few building blocks. There's energy. There's chips and there's data and there's algorithms. And if you lose on any one of those dimensions, then you're in trouble. So look, you just can't have a situation where China can train on the entire internet. and RBI models are hamstrung by needing to contract, to go to a contract with every single website.

40:45But right now, Elon owns X, right, he owns Twitter, from now X. Does Sam Altman have the right to use X in his corpus? It's publicly available. No, it's not. No, it is not publicly available. It's not a publicly available. It's not a publicly available. I honestly, I don't know the answer to that. There's some edge cases here. We're gonna have to come up with a fair use. No, it's not about whether it's behind a paywall or not. It's whether these APIs exist and whether you're actually contractually allowed to use them or not. The terms of service. Correct. The terms of service. It's published on every website what the terms of service are with respect to the content.

41:17I think it would be okay to let people opt out. We already have this with Common Crawl. You can put in the footer of the website, you put in robust .txt and you opt out of Common Crawl. Common Crawl is this nonprofit organization that basically archives the entire web every few months. funded by Gil Elbas. Formerly of Google. Formerly of Google, great fan of the pod. Shows up to our summit, it's great guy. And all of OpenAI was built off of Common Crawl originally. And he put there very clear, by the way. They say you have to clear copyrights. You don't get to just use open crawl. Can I go out on a limb?

41:53I don't know if you guys saw this. Amazon deal with the New York Times for $25 million. Did you see that today? No. I didn't see it today. Explain it please. I think that the New York Times licensed Amazon all of their content, including the athletic and a bunch of other things for training. 20 million, sorry, 20 million a year. Okay, here we go. I read that and I thought, this is the peak of these deals. These deals will only go down in terms of dollar value from here. And it actually brought me to this point where I was thinking to myself, is it even realistic to believe that patents and copyrights actually exist in five years.

42:38And I went through this exercise of like, if a computer studies the periodic table and also understands the laws of physics, the laws of biology, the laws of chemistry, and then independently derives some material that is otherwise patent -tuned, what will happen. And then separately, if two competing AIs invent a new material from scratch, how will the international course deal with this? And if you take all of these examples to the limit, at the limit, the idea that there are copyrights, enforceable copyrights, I think is a very fragile assumption. So I'm actually thinking more that we have to spend some time understanding the landscape of a world that doesn't have copyrights and protections.

43:32And instead, what is the surface area in which you compete? What is trade secret? What does that mean in a world of AI? And I think it's quite an interesting thing to think about. Patents are a totally different piece. I think that's a fascinating string to pull on. I will tell you, I will take the other side of the bet. If we want to make a polymarket on this, I will guarantee that this will be the beginning of the deals and the deals will go up from here I'll tell you why the reason the New York Times made that deal is to make it apparent that what open AI has done has damaged their business Because now they have a customer and their customer is Jeff Bezos at Amazon and Jassy and now they can show damages Because and now those damages could give them an injunction against opening, I mean opening has got to take it out of their crawl, of their, you know, construct, and that's going to be really expensive for them.

44:22It's not not doable, but it's going to be expensive. And let's think on a societal basis of what we want as a society. Do we want a society in which journalists, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors cannot make a living? Podcasters? What do we want a world in which they can? And you're assuming, hold on, let me finish, but you're assuming that as a technologist, as a technologist, We typically think if we can crawl at its ours what I can tell you as an artist is if I make it its mine and you need my permission because it's my art and I think The industry will do better if they respect them because now the New York Times can hire more fact -checkers But can I just ask you a question?

45:00But why do you have to connect the two? As immutable things meaning why can't somebody make something? Still, you know, let's just say it's a song But that song can now be made by multiple AI models. But if they make the song, there's a reasonable claim that even if they don't have the copyright, more people will want them to perform the song than some random AI. So can't you make a living without having the copyright? Which is the choice of the artist. Some artists were very well known for not wanting their art to exist in some mediums. As a perfect example, the Rolling Stones were a long time thought they would be sell -outs if they had their music used in commercials.

45:43And when they did start me up with windows, that was a really big concession from them. And that's up to the artist to make that decision. You make a valid claim. Hey, yeah, you go on tour, you make more money. But that's the artist's decision, not the technologist or the people stealing their content. And by the way, $20 million a year is a $100, $200 ,000 highly paid journalist, fact checkers, at the New York Times. They're gonna get 10 of those deals. And it's going to create a golden hour age of journalism and content. And we should be happy about that. I told you this example, Jason, but at Beast, we did a licensing deal of our content to allow OpenAI to learn, to run training runs on our videos.

46:22And at the board, the thing that we kept talking about was I was really concerned, like, let's just do a couple of your deal max. And the reason is we have no idea what this looks like in five or 10 years. And there's just as much chance to your point that we get it wrong is right. Now that was about six months ago. And so the intuition that I had back then was maybe we should keep the deal term as short as possible. But now when I see how important AI is in the global landscape and what China is doing, I think on the margins that this idea that these copyrights will mean something. In my mind, I am underwriting the value of these things going to zero.

47:04And I'm asking myself instead for my businesses, is how are we actually building a real defensive remote and not a piece of paper that we can use to sue somebody? Okay. Freeberg, you want the less word here? We got to move on to some other topics. I just want to be clear. I just want to be clear that nobody is losing their copyright. Copyright is the right not to have your work copied. And if an AI model produces outputs that copy or plagiarize your work, then that's a violation of the law. And I think the president specifically said that. We're not allowing copying or plagiarizing. The question is whether AI models are allowed to do math on the internet.

47:46You know, pattern recognition. pattern recognition. Basically that's what it is. And it's and Jake Al, I think you're conflating the two. And I don't want to interrupt it. I just want to say this. I understand the distinction. And I think that this idea that like I can't, for example, go to the library, rent a book, read it, and then learn some of the good techniques on how to write a good book should be restricted to humans in this AI context. Like this is exactly what they're doing, their identifying patterns, and then they're building predictive algorithms that allow them to output stuff that starts to fit within different kind of, you know, variable settings.

48:17Do you guys think it's possible that if you allocated enough compute at the problem, you could write Michael Friton's Jurassic Park Denoval without ever having read it? Yeah, me too me too. I think I don't know what that would mean like well, this is my point. I know my right. I know what you think Park is. I don't know what it means. I don't know what it means to say can AI write that like, but you guys remember the edge here in lawsuit. Do you remember that? I did, but let me just make one point here. I'm just because you're saying I don't understand it. I spent my career in it. I understand it much better than you do.

48:53And I understand it from lawsuits and being in the weeds on it. Like I understand it for the first principles, which you do not. And I will say, this is what we're talking about here is the definition. It's the definition of a derivative work. And the output matters. So if you were to take my knowledge and then create a derivative work from it and you used a percentage of my work, and that's where this will get into the nuance is what percentage of the original work is used in the derivative work. And under what context, a commercial context or a non -commercial. This is clearly a commercial one.

49:24If it's a, if open AI was a nonprofit right now, we'd be having a distinctly different discussion because it would be, you wouldn't be competing with me as the copyright holder to use this new medium and create the derivative works. And it has to change substantially. So if it's a, if it's a cliff notes, when China has the only models that are able to meet your stringent definitions of copyright, well, no, here's the thing. I think the China fear, the China fear shit is bullshit. I'll be totally honest here. Just because China steals IP does not mean you get to steal from Americans in America we have rules.

49:56And when you go to China, and by the way, we've spent the last 30 years, the major issue with China is not Taiwan. It has been re -backing. Let me re -back this situation itself. Let me finish. The technology industry itself has leaned on our government for 30, 40 years, including Microsoft, including Google to make sure our trade secrets are not stolen. Our IP is not stolen. Our movies are not stolen. That is the key issue with China. So just because China is a thief does not mean American companies get to be seen.

50:25Have source models or open models. They steal everything. Does that mean you should be able to steal windows? Should you be able to steal? Jason, let me ask you a question. Jason, let me ask you a question. I know you're still stealing. Elon has said this pretty clearly, but GROC -5 and for short GROC -6 will not use Common Crawl, it will not use the Internet. It'll just be an enormous amount of synthetic data. Back to what Freeberg and I just agreed upon, if you synthetically go and try to generate all this content to learn across, you're invariably going to produce something that's already been created.

50:57And so, like, Sci -Fi level. I understand that what's happening now is happening now. If somebody happens to think happens to grok five of grok six, is that violating copyright? It didn't even know that it existed on the output. Yeah, that's fine. If it on the output created a similar work, they would need to then take it down. And so that would be a really interesting new, that's a new space we're going to have to contend with. So, you've just given you a sample. If it does happen is a new concept that we would have to address in a new way. I'll give you a science corner example of this evo2 model that they published at the art institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the name of the platform or the talk tournament.

51:40So that evo2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world. Trillions and trillions of base pair of data that they ingested. and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it. They had no context for what the DNA represented. They had no context for the concept of genes. None of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did. They fed in the BRCA gene variant, and the thing output, a warning, saying, I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA. Without having any context, this is the breast cancer allele. And it didn't have any knowledge, and it wasn't trained on that at all.

52:16It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism. So that was, that's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify. And I think to Jamas' point, we may end up seeing this in things like entertainment as well. All right, this has been an amazing debate.

52:44We got to move on and you know what? We're going to have more amazing debates September 7th through 9th in Los Angeles at the all in summit. The lineup is stacked. Oli Bob is co -founder Joe S .I. Tom Abravo co -founder, Ark Invest, Kathy Wood, Uber CEO, Dara, Sequoia's role up both the YouTuber, Cleo Abram, and many, many more coming to actually get the last word here. Go. Last word to say. I was just highlighting this tweet that I saw. where talking about Chinese open -wave models or basically open source models. So basically all the leading American models are closed source and all the leading Chinese models are open source.

53:19This is kind of what I think is have played out. It's a pretty good technique for catching up is to open source because then you get the larger open source developer community helping you out. But the point is just that these open source models are catching up pretty fast. We're ahead in many other aspects. Our chips are a lot better or data centers are better and so on. and I'd say our close source models are better, but they have this one area of open source models. So again, if you hamstring our AI models access to data by creating a whole bunch of new requirements for contracting negotiations, like we could really lose the AI race.

53:52This is a really big deal. It's not a made up concern. I don't know why you think it's made up. I never said that it's made up. I think it's an opportunity for America to actually have a distinct advantage, which is that $20 million from Amazon alone is 1 % of the New York Times revenue. And that's going to go directly to the bottom line. It's going to allow them to hire more journalists. Then that protected site will have, be giving in real time something these language models are going to have to go hack and steal. That real time data is going to be a distinct advantage for Gemini, OpenAI, Amazon, whoever chooses to do it.

54:23And we can create a flag -of -key, sort of quasi -romantic notions about journalism and the need to save your time. It's also art. It's all the stuff. I mean, you can say all the derogatory things you want about me personally sacks that I didn't work. No, no, you just said I have this home nostalgia. Whenever when you do you're nostalgic for journalism as it used to exist. When I know I've beat you in the debate is when you make it personal like that. It's not personal. I'm not being nostalgic. I'm trying to create a sustainable, a sustainable advantage for America. And you are our public servant and you're trying to create my feedback.

54:59You're trying to create. We're going to ignore your feedback. We're going to ignore your feedback. We're throwing in the trash. No, you can't get it and I will be showing up at the White House for my tour. You have this crazy idea that we're going to win the AI race by tying one hand behind our back so that you can subsidize journalists. No, you can subsidize the new your child's broken business model. You'll get more content. You said before you want more training data. It's insane. Pay for more training data. Your others are. Take it back to POTUS. All right. Let's keep moving here. We have to keep moving.

55:31We have a great, this is great debate. They great debate here on the all in podcast. It's not gonna stop folks. It's just you yelling. It's just you yelling, saying things are going to make sense. But, okay, you can say that, you can. You only have like three topics, Jake Howard. And what's going on with you? And you can personally talk. No, you know what it is? It's like we gotta let in more immigrants, number one. I killed immigrants. Hey, I was gonna put everyone out of work. By the way, no sense of perceived contradiction between those two things. Number three, we need to like, some rise, throat journalists.

55:59I, you know, the audience says, No, it's the same topics every time. If you guys attack me, no, Jason, he's the only one. He's the, when the audience, I think we're gonna be like this. And the three of you gang up and you personally attack me. The audience comes up to me and they say, wow, you really nailed it. And beat that. Have I done that today? No, not yet. Not yet. A bit a little bit of the ozampic. You just been eating. Yeah, that's true. It's strangely involved. He's just eating. He's a mix eating. He's 11 % body fat. Let him eat. Let him cook. All right, listen, you and I, sex will do more debate and it's going to be amazing all in dot com slash yada yada yada for tickets get in there folks.

56:34We have to get to the docket where an hour in and we still have all the news. We should talk about this this AI privacy issue that Sam Altman mentioned. All right. That's a great segue because I saw that as well, David Sacks and as our civil servant working on AI. This is something where you can have an additional contribution. It's more work than give you. All right. Listen, here it is. AI use of privacy is becoming an issue because us, friend of the pod. Sam Altman says there is no legal confidentiality when using his product, chat GPT. Here's a 30 second clip. Again, friend of the pod. Fop, Sam Altman.

57:10On Feele Vaughn. People talk about the most personal shit in their lives to chat GPT. Young people especially, like use it as a therapist, a life coach, having these relationship problems. What should I do. And right now, if you talk to a therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about those problems, there's like legal privilege for it. We haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to chat GPT. So if you go talk to chat GPT about your most sensitive stuff and then there's like a lawsuit or whatever, like we could be required to produce that. And I think that's very screwed up. I think we should have like the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI that we do with a therapist or whatever.

57:44Okay, sacks. This is bringing something super important. What's your take on it? Okay, well, I think this is an interesting topic because like copyright, this is an area where we have existing law but it does make you rethink whether those laws are truly applicable or make as much sense in this new world. So the existing law, the existing example is search history. You know the government can get a copy of your search history they can subpoena it. Yeah, every true crime story starts with the person search for how do I kill my husband slowly with poison and then they, yeah, that's exactly. The point is though that I think Sam is right about the legal treatment right now, which is that your chat history isn't any different than the search history and the eyes of the law, but it is much more personal.

58:37It's much more interactive than your search history. You are using it, like you said, you could use it as your doctor. You could use it as your therapist. You could use it as your lawyer. And so the ability for the federal government to be intrusive is so much greater than with your search history. So I don't know what like the right policy should be yet, but I will say it does make me uncomfortable. Yeah, there's a more. Can I make a recommendation to my A and I? Yes, please. He's our. Why don't we, please? Why don't we let AI models get bar certified and get medically certified. So if the AI models it turns out are actually proving to be more accurate, more thoughtful, more responsive, more reasonable, whatever it is, whatever metric we're using, and they pass the same criteria as one would need to pass to qualify for the bar or to qualify for a doctor certificate.

59:35Why don't we do that for the AI? If that then happens, then the same privilege accrued to the AI as it does to the individual human that does it. And now if you extrapolate from where that takes us, if we're suddenly giving AI the same sort of privileged rights that we give to privileged humans, where is that going to take us ultimately with respect to the overall rights for AI? Well, they have responsibility. That's a longer form. Hold on a second. Actually, one point out here once again, you have a mind -blowing concept here. You have never heard anybody vocalize that. Could they actually be certified in that knowledge?

1:00:03and if they pass the test, it makes sense they would, but then you also get responsibility. So with a great power, it comes with great responsibility. I will tell you this, you can turn this stuff off, but this is an opportunity, I'm gonna send a note to you. It sounds crazy today, but I guarantee, if you put it on polymarket, there will be a date when this happens. You will end up on a polymarket shop to shame. Let's get that up there. I just wanna point out, I'm gonna email Elon about this when I get off the pod. This is an opportunity to create the signal of a signal equivalent of an LLM. All of your chats should be encrypted.

1:00:31all of it should be by default, encrypted by default on GROC. Make it so that GROC can't even see it. They don't have it. So when you try to subpoena it, you can do what Tim Cook does, which he says, like, I don't have it. If you want to try to backdoor it, you can. That's a market opportunity. I can tell you, I only use the Brave browser and Brave search for this reason. I don't want my search history like, save somewhere or whatever. That, you can take control of this as an individual, but the defaults matter and you have to then do the work. It's a great market opportunity, Chimoff. I don't even want to know what you're talking to chat GPT about.

1:01:04What's in your chat GPT logs? What's in there Chimoff? How do we stand? How to get the extra centimeter? What's in there? You trying to? What's in there? I keep asking it to find me a moderator. Oh great. I keep asking it to find me a participant who's not a douche. Um. And my God, you are so deep in your villain era and you're leaning into it. And I'm so here for it, you're my I love your villain. I know I am so why are you going into your villain? I am so risk on right now. It's like it's liberating actually. It's amazing. It's really amazing. Is there any blowback to how outlandish you've become this year?

1:01:46Any blowback at all has that any negative consequence on business or hiring or anything No, but I'll land this how how I've been outlandish. You're you're just filter off your filter off It is and I think it's great. I think the over to windows back. It's absolutely fantastic. We're seeing here I asked chat GPT about my future and my IQ. It's very interesting when you ask chat GPT to analyze you Mm -hmm. I suggest everyone do it. Well actually yeah when you just ask chat GPT or whatever what do you know about me? Mm -hmm, and it's scary how much it already is scary There's this great personality test you can put this personality test into GROC and this guy like me this prompt and it goes and it tells you all your personality based on your Twitter X history.

1:02:26It is wild how accurate it is. What does it say about you, T -Cell? I'm actually curious. It says the same thing about all of us. We're all like network, narcissists, ENTJ. You can literally run the Myers -Brigs against your chat history. It's actually, but I like your mind -blowing concept there, by the way, of like then becoming certified in some way. Okay, fresh, economic news. It's time for the administration to take their victory lap. GDP growth was 50 % higher than expectations in Q2 as the Fed held rates at 4 .25%. In Q1, GDP is equivalent to 50 basis points. That's probably due to the imports.

1:03:05People were stockpiling goods. That's the most pointless chart ever. Okay. And then, yeah, it is, I agree. It's a little bit... Yeah. That's distorted by one of that. I wanted to have both the bar charts. This one is totally undrived. Let's just say it. It's okay. What drugs are you on? I'm not. I have coffee and now I'm out. I'm out. We're all friends. You can tell us. Is it really just out? All right. That's it. I'm taking it out. I took it out. And now let's get back to the here. Okay. The Fed cap rates unchanged for the fifth straight meeting this time. Two out of 11 Fed governors to send it from Powell's decision.

1:03:38Two of the dissenters were both Republicans nominated by Trump. So it seems like the Fed is becoming a little polarized now too. So first time in 32 years, that more than one governor dissented, and yeah, even one person dissenting is rare. Here's a 25 second clip of Powell explaining how GDP factor into the cut decision. Nick, please play the clip. Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity has moderated. GDP rose at a 1 .2 % pace in the first half of this year, down from 2 .5 % last year. Although the increase in the second quarter was stronger at 3%, focusing on the first half of the year helps smooth through the volatility in the quarterly figures related to the unusual swings in net exports.

1:04:25The PCE index and then I'll throw this over to you, Sachs, for the official position here. For June dropped on Thursday, PCE is the feds preferred gauge of inflation over CPI. PCE rose 30 bips in June in line with estimates. and if you remember, we talked about it in previous episodes. CPI rose a bit, 13 % or 30 bips for May to June. So we're not close to the 2 % target, and that's what the Fed keeps saying. We're not there yet, and the economy is alfwego. Sacks, you note, I don't know if you notice this, Sacks, but people are talking about the QD, the second quarter print, which was amazing for GDP.

1:05:03You were talking about it a bunch, shim off on the socials, he keeps referencing the first half. So he's trying to blend those two together, I think, because of the the tariff differences or, you know, maybe to smooth it out as he said, what's your take on this? The GDP boomed in, you know, 3%, which is pretty great. But is that the problem? No, the problem that Jerome Powell has is that he's trying to smooth it because it allows him to justify his political decision. Okay. But the reason why you have to segregate Q1 and Q2, Q1 was before tariffs and Q2 was after tariffs. So I think you have to segregate these two things.

1:05:40And if you look at the run rate from Q2, what you're probably going to see in Q3 and beyond is more similar to Q2, which is to say, a large surplus, good GDP expansion, and moderating inflation. So why does the Fed not cut? But because at this point, not cutting is the only thing that you can do to slow the Trump administration down going into the midterms if you wanted to politicize the job. If however, on the other hand, you just take the data as is and you ignore Q1 because it was pre -tariff and you start to look at Q2 and you project forward. If you inject a hundred basis point cut into the economy, this thing is going to go gangbusters and Trump is going to look like an economic genius going into 2026.

1:06:28So I think that, again, in the absence of politics, you cut... Okay, sacks. What's to take from inside the administration around it? I know you're not speaking for the president on this issue, but you're in the administration, so I'm assuming you're... Yeah, I'm not speaking for anyone, but obviously the 3 % number is way ahead of expectations. It's a fantastic number. It just feels like everything's humming on all cylinders here. One thing you didn't mention, but I think it's relevant is the new trade deal with the EU. We're about to get to that, by the way. That's the next story. Okay, well, I mean, I would include that because...

1:07:01Okay, I've included it. I mean, I think it was a deal that just got announced where the EU is going to open its markets to US products, no tariff on US products, but they will pay a 15 % tariff coming into the US. They're going to be investing 600 billion in the US. They're going to be buying 750 billion of US energy and then some very large number, I guess they didn't specify number on defense products, basically American military products, hundreds of billions, which is the follow -up to their commitment to raise their contribution to NATO to 5 % of GDP up from, I guess it was sort of like 2 % before.

1:07:38So I mean, this is a huge deal for the United States. I think it's a huge win for the Trump administration. and the deal is so good that what I'm seeing from European sources on X, European publications, just commenters is that they were like outrage, they felt like they got taken to the cleaners here. Good. And you see a lot of that on X by Europeans. A lot of the European leaders are saying that Ursula chickened out. So, you know, all those stupid taco memes are going away now because as people are realizing that Trump's willingness to raise tariffs on these countries as a threat to renegotiate better trade deals is working.

1:08:23It's working. It's working extraordinarily well. Does this EU deal only to think about it? Is you add it all up, it's about $2 trillion. It's effectively $2 trillion of stimulus into the US, but without money printing. Yeah, over the next three years. So it's non -inflationary. But it's not insignificant. Freedberg, your thoughts on the Fed, the GDP print, and maybe you could get into the granular details of that print. If you pull up the schedule of data, so this is the national income and product accounts data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. So this is where the inflation print comes from.

1:09:02I think there are two lines worth taking significant note of. The first is the furnishings and durable household equipment line. So in June, the cost for furnishings and household stuff jumped 1 .3 % month over month on an annualized basis, right? That's almost 15 % year over year if it were to continue at that level. And then the second one is this recreational goods and vehicles. That jumped 0 .9 % month over month. Neither of those categories have jumped that much in kind of recent history. So part of the argument that's being made is that what we are seeing in these jumps is actually some of the first effects of the tariffs and the cost of goods that are being imported because these are largely imports.

1:09:47Having an adverse effect on the consumer. And so I think this is kind of a weight and sea moment on some of these categories that are predicted to have a terrorist price effect starting to show through. So I think this is where a lot of folks are keeping it close to. I on it, it kind of provides a little bit of the support for the economists that are saying we should keep right steady because if we are seeing a significant inflationary effect here, it's worth noting that there's something that we need to be thoughtful about and rate policy. I think this is a really good point. If you look in this debate, which is obviously highly political, we're at inflation 2 .567%, percent spending is increasing obviously stock market at an all time high unemployment trending down again so we're at like 4 .1 % And people are just yoloing into crypto and they're doing sports betting Bitcoin at all time high I think the Fed now is in a position where cutting rates seems like putting caracene on the fire if Trump Tank the economy in Q2 he probably would have gotten the rates, but now I don't think it's reasonable as you're saying Dave of the reasons to not cut are building because the economy's on fire.

1:10:56So maybe the shock and bore approach to tariffs, which is now becoming a playbook. I had a nice talk with Lutnik about this, who I love, by the way. He really described to me how they're doing this. And the shock and bore playbook is basically, Trump says something completely outrageous, shocking. Everybody goes crazy, the media loses their mind, business leaders lose their mind. Lutnik told me that what he does is he sets the table and propose is something reasonable, because you know, now I'm a big, you know, direct contact with all the administration, so I thank you for that. But Nick, and he described it, Trump comes in, sees all the stuff, and then he starts making his micro tweaks.

1:11:35So it's on the finish line, it's in the red zone, five yard line, Trump comes in, and then he sticks it to them again with three or four extra asks, and then they wrap it up, and that this is becoming really effective. So it was chaotic at first, it seemed nonsensical, But they've put the Fed in a really bad position because they never seen this before. They've never seen this before. So now they're going to be in this defensive position of what if we cut it and the market rips to your point, you just said the market will rip the second they cut that. And the cynical view of this is the market rips as we go into the midterms, which is the same claim the Republicans made about the cuts that Biden did in September right before the election.

1:12:17So there are some level of politics and gamesmanship going on here, but you have to hand it to the Trump administration for what they're doing with this sort of 2 .0 playbook. If this was SACs pre -meditated and we all just didn't understand it, fine. The outcome here is this administration has to live or die by the results of these. 600 billion from the EU, 550 billion in investment from Japan. You put those two together. IS, Latinac is that at the event? Is that going into the sovereign wealth fund? And how does that get, you know, spent? And he said at the discretion of the president and he's advising him to spend it on putting more nuke's in.

1:12:59So that's fascinating. We have a trillion dollars now that we can put into nuclear power plans and these small module reactors. And that's what Latinac said. He wanted to spend it on. He's going to advise the president to spend it on. But now we've got them investing in our country. It's absolutely brilliant if it works out. Look at what we're saying. If it works out. April 2nd was Liberation Day and the media went crazy. They were predicting a black Monday, the market crash. They basically tried to spook the markets and create fear. They said that we're going to go into a session or depression and now look at where we are.

1:13:33Since a few months later, all the markets are at all time highs. Trump has extracted billions of dollars in these trade deals that people have even know yet. Was it premeditated, tell us the truth. Was it premeditated? Hold on. President Trump has extracted trillions of dollars from other countries using powers that other presidents didn't even know they had. 100 % 100 % was it premeditated because it was chaotic the market did. And we just had a three percent because of the media by the way. And we just had those moves because they were scared. And we just had a three percent GDP growth print.

1:14:06So I don't think it could be what I think happened is that President Trump saw an opportunity to hear that other people ignored. It's like when a CEO comes in to a company, and new CEO comes in, and that company's been mismanaged for a decade, but it's got wonderful assets on its balance sheet. It's got a market position that's still very strong. This has been underutilized. And he came in and understood that the United States had tremendous leverage in all these trade negotiations. Actually, they weren't even trade negotiations then in all these trade relationships. And he was able to essentially renegotiate all of them and look at the results.

1:14:42I mean, they're just staggering. And you know, everyone said that, Oh, Trump's going to chicken alley is not going to hang tough. It's all these other countries that have folded like, I don't know, launchers. I mean, they have all capitulated. Yeah, they're really remarkable. But you're not answering my question. Was this pre -meditated? Give us some insight here. I don't know what this is. What are you talking about? When they came out and they was like, Oh, 100 % tar, 200 % tar, the market was not making that reaction based upon the media, they were making it based on Trump was saying. So was it premeditated this shock and bore shock and reasonable negotiating strategy, or do you not know?

1:15:19Well, you're not privy to. Look, I'm not speaking as an insider here, but we said at the time that all of that was happening and Larry Summers was on the pod preaching doom is that all of that was an opening bid. It was all the start to a negotiation and we had to see where it ended up and that the administration sought to stick the landing. Okay. But I got to say based on EU, Japan, and South Korea, I mean, this is looking really good right now. Well, listen, it's the top five that are like 90 % of the negotiation. As Trump said, there was another little note he did in the keynote when he kind of drifted into his, you know, different things he wanted to talk about where he said, I don't even need to know about the bottom countries I've never even heard that names of some of these countries.

1:15:59He's just got a nail of what? The top five, the top 10, and we're done. And this administration has to stick the landing as well because these are handshake deals right now. They have to be inked, they have to be approved. So there's a lot more work left to be done, but I am. There's one other piece of it as well. There's one of the piece of it. So we talked about the fact that Europe has 0 % tariffs on American products, but even after this deal, that the European products are coming into the US while the 15 % tariff, and we're not including the $600 billion of European investment in the US, We're not including the 750 billion of sales of American energy to Europe.

1:16:38Okay, just talking about the tariff that 15 % and what we're seeing now across the board is generating about 300 billion a year of additional tariff revenue that goes to help balancing the budget. So 300 billion a year of a 10 years is 3 trillion. That is a big number. It's incredible. Yeah. It's got to start. So I don't know if that completely satisfies Freiburg, but that's a big help. So, FreeBarg, do you think that there is a chance that inflation is going to tick up because of all this? Like, there's a lot of money being pushed into the system again. So, could we see a three -hand or a lot inflation in the next six months?

1:17:11Or what's the probability of that in your mind? That's the big concern, everybody has. I don't know. I don't know. I think the big question, if you look at each of these categories, one way to think about it is how much margin is the seller making? If they're making 30 % margin and we charge a 15 % tariff, does their margin go down to 15 % or do they take their margin down to 20 % and raise the price by 5%. What's the right balance? And what will happen is that now with this effective tariff, which is a sort of tax on the system, a tax on the market, market will find its kind of new equilibrium where the buyers are willing to pay X and the sellers are willing to sell it Y.

1:17:52And I think every market's going to be a bit different. So I think in some of these categories, we will see significant inflation where there is a very thin margin that the seller has in selling. And in some of the categories where there's a monopoly and they have a big margin, they're going to eat it because they don't want to have competition and they don't want to see pricing competition emerge. So I think we'll see it vary by category and we'll see how it goes. All right, listen, this has been another amazing, amazing episode of the number one podcast in the world according to Jensen Wong from Nvidia and me.

1:18:22And great job everybody. Great job everybody. It's a classic all in everyone, even Jake hell. Even Jake, even Jason, come here. It's great job. And actually I want to thank Freeberg. Because Freeberg did most of the work to organize the AI summit. Let's give him a big shout out. There's me and the president. Great job. I mean, guys, can we just make a note here? One of us can run for Manchurian candidate president in eight years. and look at me in the president. I put on the red tie out of respect. I put my blue suit on out of respect for the president. Does it not look like I'm running president Jason?

1:18:57Hmm. Dot com. All right, listen. That photo could be like, you know, that famous photo of Bill Clinton meeting JFK, you know, that could be the thing that that could be the thing that I'm in like the president image that propels you to the presidency. I'm in like, thank you for giving me that. and putting me in touch with each member of the administration directly. Thank you for that. And we had a wonderful tour of the White House the next day. What a wonderful tour. Some of us had at the White House the next day, but in a lot of state, no, I was. Did you? No, I was taking the pictures. That was my joke.

1:19:30This was all of you guys. What are you giving you a tour? We could have gotten you a tour. I mean, listen, I love Jay. Did you ask for a tour? I did ask for this time. I'm not the kind of guy to ask. I'm the guy to be a fighter. Some of us have actual meetings to do, You're pro. I mean, you're good. I got a lot going on. I got a lot to announce and happen in the coming weeks. But, Sachs, do take us behind the scene here. And I think it was hilarious. So I don't mind getting trolled by the president. It was great. But how did you, how did that go about behind the scenes that he know that you don't leave it?

1:19:55What did you do? I mean, because that looked like it was workshoped. Or is he just naturally, I mean, he's obviously naturally comedic. But did you put that in with him? Did you have to clear that with him? Hey, Duncan, Jake, how, whatever. Well, they asked me for the names of you know my co -hosts and so they could do shout outs. So I gave him the list Oh no, and I just I said and I put even Jake House

1:20:20But I mean he went for it No, he he got the we went through it. So he got the joke. Okay. He got the J we went through the floor He got the laugh. He got it. He heard the last call. He heard the laugh and he doubled down I thought it'd be funny, but no, we went through everyone's names beforehand and and uh... who I mean talk about EQ the guys EQ is off the charts man he just actually I suggested I suggested the name jcal and he's like no no give me his full name he thought was more courteous uh... he's actually a very yeah he could be a smm yeah he wanted he wanted to use your full name not just your nickname I think what he probably realized was for my parents who were just over the moon so thank you for that it meant a lot to my dad who's That's lovely.

1:21:02Yeah, he's been struggling a bit and it really, let me get a little choked up here. My dad's been struggling a bit and I got to see him in Brooklyn after that and we were on a tech stream and it meant a lot, you know, because for a kid from Brooklyn to get a shout out from the president of the United States is you made it. I mean, it's just your father. Your father should be really proud of you. Thanks, man. Appreciate it. I appreciate it. Boys. All right, listen, four, your Sultan of Science, be amazing, Dave Freberger, put that event together in 10 days and then jumped right in and he's got to run a hollow at the same time.

1:21:31So I just want to give our MVP of the We give a shout to the Hillin Valley guys for partnering. Oh, yeah, Jacob. Jacob Helberg did a great job. I love Jacob. I love Jacob and Delian and Chris. Great. Thank you guys. They were our partners on the event. Hillin Valley did a great job. Yeah, I love those guys. But yeah, just I'm giving the MVP of the week for of the besties to you, David Freiburg. You put a lot of work into this. So we appreciate it. You're running our hollow and then you went right into working on the all in summer, which will be added a couple of weeks. Tmot, thank you for buttoning up.

1:22:00We're getting a little complaints from the HR department about the buttons. And so we've now renegotiated that. I'm gonna, I'm gonna button three buttons now and walk around for it. Perfect. And Sacks, I will see you at the White House. JD and I will be in the commissary. So we'll invite you to lunch with us. I'm Sissy, JD. It's called the Navy mess. Actually, in the mess, yeah. And you know what? Letnik's joining us as well. And who's our energy guy, Chris? Chris said he wanted to jump in on that. So maybe you can join us. I'll invite you now that I'm in. deep into the administration. Thank you for tuning in everybody all in .com events.

1:22:32The scholarship tickets are up. So if you want to try to get one of the very few scholarship tickets, we always like our up and comers. Please if you're if you're of means, don't apply for the scholarship. You won't get it in. But if you're up and coming and you're part of the audience, you want to get one of those discounted tickets. We have a limited number of those available all in .com such events. Love your best. These bye bye. Just making fun of himkel

1:23:20Oh man, my ham is the actual meat. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release some of them. What, you're the beef? What, you're the beef? Beef, what? We need to get merchies aren't there. I'm doing all this!