00:00:00
Jason, do you want to tell us about your new favorite podcast? Oh, it's so good.
00:00:06
My feed is now because, you know, since cancel culture ended, Sachs, everybody uses the R word and the f word right
00:00:14
now. My entire feed on Instagram is either gay or down syndrome or bulldogs. It's one of those three. And then I
00:00:22
stumbled upon the Miss Thing pod, Miss Thing. And they do a bit called gay name, straight name. Here's gay name or
00:00:30
straight name for David. This good news and bad news freeird. Here we go. >> Gay name or straight name?
00:00:38
>> David. >> David to me is straight. >> Okay. But he has my perfect body. It can
00:00:46
be confusing because I'm kind of like, are you gay? And it's like, no, I just
00:00:50
want to be you, David. >> Totally. Well, it's so like the Michelangelo's David the male ideal.
00:00:56
It's like incredible body kind of small. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> it's a little rough.
00:01:02
>> What? >> What are you watching there, Jal? >> They basically nailed these two, but
00:01:06
okay, keep going. >> I don't think Chimoth is on their short list, but I know Jason will come up at
00:01:10
some point. >> Gay name or straight. >> Maybe this is it. >> Chimoth
00:01:16
on the count of three. Yeah. >> Three, two, one. gay. I'm seeing like Italian sweater, like really kind of
00:01:25
like a loud vibrant sweater. He like wears it to like poker night with his like his boys and like not I'm not
00:01:33
talking like straight poker. I'm talking like gay poker nights like at the bar.
00:01:38
>> Yeah. Always talking about wine. >> Talks about wines. >> Always sort of like
00:01:44
Yeah, exactly. >> Yep. Also, it's so like the guy at the gym taking off his shirt, taking
00:01:51
selfies. >> Yeah. And everyone else is kind of like, "Excuse me, Chimoth. I'd like to use the
00:01:56
mirror. I'd like to see myself. >> See you at the next day." Poker night.
00:02:00
>> Totally. >> You bring the wine. >> We'll bring the sweater.
00:02:04
>> Yeah, >> there it is. Wow. They did do. >> That is fantastic. That is fantastic. A
00:02:09
shout out to my guys at the Miss Ding podcast. >> Wow, that was awesome. I think I'm gay.
00:02:16
I never knew. >> Let your winners ride. >> And it said we open sourced it to the
00:02:28
fans and they've just gone crazy with it. >> What did you do like cameo? Did you pay
00:02:37
them to do that? >> Did it for me as a favor. So they did it for >> That's awesome. Well, thanks to those
00:02:41
guys to the miss. I've seen those guys before in clips. I find them very funny.
00:02:46
>> It's so great. Shout out to my guys. >> That was awesome. >> All right, everybody. Seriously, welcome
00:02:52
back to the number one podcast in the world. It's the All-In podcast with me
00:02:56
again, David Freebergia, David Saxs, and of course, I'm Jason Calcanis. You can
00:03:01
call me Jay Cal if you're here for the first time. Topic one, open AI. They missed their targets for chat GPT
00:03:09
Freedberg both on users and revenue. Let's talk about it. The Wall Street Journal says in a uh a breaking
00:03:18
investigative report on Tuesday that OpenAI expected to hit 1 billion wows weekly active users before the end of
00:03:26
2025. They missed that and they still haven't hit the milestone 4 months into
00:03:30
2026. Also, Chamath, they missed their 2025 revenue target for Chad GPT. Exact number wasn't specified, but as we've
00:03:39
talked about here, they're at a 2030 billion run rate. There's a little bit
00:03:43
of accounting nuance that is yet to be worked out in the industry. Two reasons why this matters. Sachs, OpenAI has $600
00:03:52
billion in spending commitments for compute. Just to put that in perspective, that's about what they're
00:03:58
trading for on secondary markets. In other words, the entire value of the Open AI enterprise equals their spend
00:04:04
commitments in the coming year. CFO Sarah Frier, who is coming to liquidity, is reportedly worried, hey, that revenue
00:04:10
isn't growing fast enough to keep up with expense and OpenAI wants to IPO later this year. This has put Frier and
00:04:19
Oughtman in conflict or uh maybe there's some natural tension there. Frier doesn't think OpenAI is ready for public
00:04:26
reporting standards. According to the Wall Street Journal, Altman obviously wants to move faster, so they released a
00:04:33
joint statement. this is ridiculous yada yada yada. Let's go to you Saxs. What do
00:04:38
you think's going on here? Are these major headwinds or is this just managing
00:04:41
expectations as the leader of the pack in the most important race of our lifetimes, the race towards super
00:04:48
intelligence? >> Well, I actually have a little bit of a contrarian take on this. I know that
00:04:53
OpenAI had a really bad week. Like you said, they had that Wall Street Journal article which said that they missed
00:04:58
their numbers. They missed their 1 billion user growth target. They missed their revenue numbers. That's called
00:05:04
into question whether they can afford the data center commitments that they've
00:05:08
made. And then in addition to that, they've also had the lawsuit with with Elon happening this week. So in the
00:05:14
press, it ended up being I think a pretty bad week for them. But I have a contrarian take on this, which is I
00:05:18
think that over the past week or two, if you look at kind of what's happening at
00:05:22
the product level, it's been a pretty good couple of weeks for them. They released chat GBT 5.5 and the reviews
00:05:29
from, you know, people I talked to in Silicon Valley have been really strong. You talk to developers, coders, they're
00:05:34
very happy with it. At the same time, Opus 4.7, which is the latest anthropic release, appears to be a bust. People
00:05:41
are complaining about it. They're in a lot of cases are rolling back to 4.6.
00:05:46
They're saying that Opus 4.7 is rationing compute. It's reducing thinking time, not as good. there were
00:05:52
some bugs and clawed. So if you just compare chat GPT 5.5 to Opus 4.7, it does appear that OpenAI has had a better
00:06:02
couple of weeks on a product level. And I think there's reason to believe that
00:06:07
the product improvements will continue. GPT 5.5 is based on a new base model called Spud, which is the first base
00:06:15
model upgrade they've done in I don't know over a year. and having a new base
00:06:18
model will pave the way for future improvements as well. So I think OpenAI is feeling pretty optimistic about their
00:06:25
product right now and I think you're starting to see on X some of the developer mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a
00:06:31
lot of people saying that they are shifting their their coding usage from Opus to GPT 5.5.
00:06:39
So I think that SAM may end up being right but for the wrong reason. And what I mean by that is that when he made
00:06:49
these big compute commitments, it was based on those estimates of hitting the billion users on the consumer side and
00:06:56
hitting those revenue targets. The consumer business ended up being weak. So they missed those targets. But in the
00:07:02
meantime, coding has become the allimportant sector of AI. And because they made all these compute commitments
00:07:11
and they built out these data centers, they have more compute than anthropic right now. Anthropic is token
00:07:17
constrained. It's reducing their ability to serve mythos, for example. It's
00:07:21
causing them to engage in compute gating with Opus 4.7. And I understand why Daario made that decision. I'm not
00:07:27
saying I mean it was a prudent business decision. I'm not criticizing him for
00:07:30
it, but I think again I think Sam may end up being right here for the wrong reason, which is he missed on consumer,
00:07:37
but enterprise is going gang busters and is giving him the ability now, I think,
00:07:42
to catch up on code. your poly market >> which is the all important market right
00:07:46
now >> of course and we talked about gro and cursor teaming up last week Elon and the
00:07:50
team over there poly market showing now a 32% chance that openai goes public by the end of 2026 this is down from 60% in
00:07:58
December and Shimath you gave a bit of a warning hey there's only so many dollars
00:08:04
to go around SpaceX IPO is obviously getting out first and now if openai doesn't go out this year and anthropic
00:08:13
does the sets up an interesting dynamic. What are your thoughts here generally speaking about the massive commitment
00:08:19
that OpenAI has made? Are they going to run off the cliff or will it wind up being brilliant? Uh even if it wasn't
00:08:26
strategically for the exact reasons, >> I think they're going to be fine. I
00:08:30
think this is a multi-t trillion dollar company. I think Anthropic is a multi- trillion dollar company. I think the
00:08:36
thing that's happening right now is uh a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening
00:08:44
inside of the world of AI. And there is one very specific choke point that is constraining everything which is
00:08:50
access to the power that's necessary to drive these tokens. To the extent that
00:08:55
open AI missed, I think what that is is an insight to not enough compute capacity today. And that problem is only
00:09:03
getting worse. You've already seen that with Anthropic as well where they just
00:09:08
found a way to economically induce Amazon to give them enough capacity so that you don't have to route through
00:09:16
bedrock to get to the anthropic models. You're also seeing them do differentiated deals now with economic
00:09:23
participation on top of what they already had from folks like Google to give them more capacity. What is my
00:09:28
point? Everything in this market is power constrained. The reason that these folks may miss a number or a forecast
00:09:36
have nothing to do with demand. It is entirely 100% due to the supply of the power necessary to generate the output
00:09:44
token. There is a really interesting thing that was just announced today that will make this problem even worse, which
00:09:52
is what you're starting to see now is backlogs build up of not just the access
00:09:59
to the power, but then the componentry that's actually necessary. Not just resips and not just NAT gas turbines,
00:10:05
but now you're talking about transformers and all the actual tactical grid infrastructure.
00:10:10
Why is this important? If you look at the actual amount of gigawatts that are under construction, we have a huge
00:10:18
mismatch now, people have announced all these projects, Jason, but less than half of it is actually
00:10:26
being built. Less than half. Most of it is stuck in red tape. Most of that is because there are these
00:10:33
supply chain delays. So there's no credible strategy to turn any of this stuff on. Who will this hurt? It will
00:10:41
hurt Anthropic and OpenAI the most. Who will this benefit? It will benefit the hyperscalers, specifically Oracle,
00:10:49
Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google. And now what you're going to see is a negotiation and a trade back and forth.
00:10:57
How much equity do I have to give up? How much control do I have to give up to get access to the compute versus how
00:11:04
badly will I miss my growth forecasts if I don't? And now what that means is, and
00:11:09
we spoke about this last week, that's a huge lane for Grock to just run through
00:11:13
and SpaceX to run through cuz they have a ton of excess capacity. And so I think
00:11:19
the cursor deal was the appetizer. But if I were Elon now, I'd be running all
00:11:24
over this market because if the models catch up in quality, I think he could also do something really crazy with
00:11:31
anthropic or open AI right now. Maybe not open AI because of the >> we'll get into the lawsuit in a bit
00:11:36
>> the baggage. >> Yeah. >> But man, he and Dario should do a deal
00:11:40
tomorrow. >> So you're framing, hey, the the limited resource here is compute. The demand is
00:11:47
off the charts. >> No, the limiting resource is power. power which then powers compute which
00:11:52
then provides tokens which then services the massive uh developer and co-work and
00:11:59
all these other projects that consumers and enterprises can't get enough of. Got
00:12:03
it. >> And Jason, the other factor that complicates that for anthropic and open
00:12:07
AI is all the stuff that's sort of sitting around thumb twiddling. 40% of that is going to get cancelled because
00:12:14
they've done such a poor job of creating a good positive halo around AI that 40%
00:12:20
of all the announced projects get cancelled because 40% of all projects in the last four years have been cancelled.
00:12:28
Yeah. And there's there there are some bad feelings about data centers, AI, jobs, etc. And that's causing some
00:12:35
headwind. People are you literally doing violent things in society and blaming data centers and AI for it. I don't want
00:12:43
to give it too much air time. Freeberg, what's your take on the chessboard we're
00:12:47
looking at here? Either through compute, energy or through going public on a business level, you know, the strategic
00:12:56
nature of capital, compute and energy now playing a role in this massive amount of demand. still a ball in the
00:13:04
air kind of game. BCG had this theory, I think I talked about this once before, called the rule of three where they've
00:13:12
shown time and again that any stable, mature, competitive market evolves to a 4:21
00:13:20
ratio of market share for basically 90% of the market. So there's a market leader that has four times the market
00:13:26
share of the second place, that's two times the market share of the third place. This is the case in pretty much
00:13:30
every mature kind of competitive market. So you can kind of think about AI probably evolving into a consumer market
00:13:36
and an enterprise market. Open AAI, even if they're not at a billion, they're
00:13:40
still at 900 million weekly users, which is well ahead of whatever Claude is at.
00:13:46
I think Claude is like probably subund million sacks, you may know. And then Gemini is probably closer to them at 700
00:13:52
to a billion somewhere in that range. Probably pretty neck and neck with open AI. So, you know, the consumer market
00:13:59
looks like it's trending towards a chat GPT/Google fight for first place and second place
00:14:06
and then probably anthropic in third place and maybe Elon emerges and takes off enabled by his compute capacity and
00:14:13
then the enterprise market is a little bit of a different story and that's its
00:14:16
own market which is kind of anthropic or probably Google in the lead actually if
00:14:20
you look at all the vertex use. Google claims that 75% of GCP customers are active users of Vertex. So there's
00:14:29
probably a pretty sizable market share that Google's captured on the enterprise side as well. This is
00:14:34
also probably why Google stock has absolutely ripped over the last couple of months is they're literally in first
00:14:39
place or fighting for first place in enterprise and consumer. But I still think that there's a lot of
00:14:46
opportunity to Chimoff's point about the compute and energy capacity constraints
00:14:50
in improving how we actually scale and deploy models in both the enterprise and the consumer setting. And it is such
00:14:57
early days and I just want to highlight this paper that came out from MIT from these two scientists and these guys
00:15:05
published a paper on pruning techniques and neural networks. This paper showed that you could actually reduce the size
00:15:10
of these networks by 90%. And get the same accuracy out by pruning very large models down to smaller
00:15:19
models. And then you can make a selection on which model to run for inference. And by doing this, you can
00:15:24
actually reduce inference costs by 10x. You can get 10x the output per energy unit that goes into the data center with
00:15:31
no loss of accuracy. And so it's a really interesting call it algorithmic technique that can be applied to the
00:15:38
existing large models to actually make them much lower energy use. So if you think about it, you're firing up a very
00:15:44
large model to answer a very simple question. You can actually prune away that model. Now this is probably going
00:15:51
to be the case in AI applications as it is in traditional Google search. There's
00:15:56
a long tale of searches, but there's a few searches that account for a large
00:16:00
percentage of search volume. It's like what is the weather? What are the movies
00:16:04
times? You know, what's the stock price? Like there's a certain set of things
00:16:08
that make up the bulk of consumer energy. And there's probably a certain set of things that probably make up the
00:16:12
bulk of coding output as well. And so if you can get that 80% of searches or chat
00:16:18
interfaces or coding requests reduced down through pruning techniques to smaller models and then you have a whole
00:16:25
set of smaller models that can be called dynamically and you reduce inference cost by 90%. you can make much more use,
00:16:31
call it 10 times the use on data center and energy capacity than we can today. So I would argue that we're still in the
00:16:37
very early days of getting efficiency in terms of output and tokens and we're
00:16:42
just in the very kind of early stage of that which also unlocks the opportunity for guys like Elon to reinvent how this
00:16:47
is done and potentially compete pretty aggressively. >> There are two ways to win. You could
00:16:51
throw compute at it or you can do SLM's small language models and V SLM's
00:16:57
verticaliz small language model. So if you had a verticalized small language model for the weather, let's say that
00:17:03
doesn't exist, but uh you can you can use it as an example. They will have one
00:17:07
for travel as an example. When you hit Google for flight information, it's obviously going to route you to
00:17:13
something lighter and faster that uses Google flights. And Google flights has been incor incorporated into Gemini.
00:17:19
Gemini now is right behind 700 750 million users >> and it's exactly what we discussed I
00:17:27
don't know 18 months ago on this podcast Freeberg that what if they put it at the
00:17:30
top >> and what would that do to their search revenue search revenue is surging and
00:17:37
they're also surging so they figured out a way to balance those two competing
00:17:41
forces having search results that are AI enabled and still getting people to click on links they've done it
00:17:47
brilliantly apparently and the stock is rewarding. >> I'll just add one statement to what you
00:17:51
said, which is like you're using what I would call a humanistic on humans don't intuitively know what this
00:18:01
model is. It's not just a verticalized model, but there are going to be models
00:18:05
that will be discovered through automated pruning techniques that will then be working in concert. So, lots of
00:18:12
small models that link together. And we don't define each model by some human
00:18:15
heristic like this is a search travel model. >> This is a maps model. We don't we don't
00:18:20
know why these models work the way they do when they get broken down. But I do think that that's really where the
00:18:25
evolution is happening. So effectively a model becomes a macro model. It's got
00:18:29
lots of smaller models underneath it that can be dynamically called and that allows you to have 10x the inference for
00:18:35
the same unit of energy. >> Sax, >> let me just build on your point about
00:18:38
Google. Jcal, I would say that if there's a single reason why OpenAI did not hit its user targets and its revenue
00:18:48
targets, certainly around consumer, you'd have to say it's because Google
00:18:52
managed to take meaningful share, you know, they were basically nowhere a year or so ago. Sergey came out of
00:19:00
retirement, helped focus the company, and like you said, they did a brilliant job improving Gemini and putting it at
00:19:07
the top of search, incorporating it. Now, that being said, again, I don't think the news is all bad for OpenAI
00:19:13
because I do think that the 5.5 release was great. We're hearing really good
00:19:17
things about Codeex. I do think that Codeex is taking share in coding tokens right now. And I just think we're in a
00:19:25
really interesting place where these companies are constantly oneuping each other. I mean, two weeks ago it looked
00:19:31
like Anthropic was going to be completely dominant, right? I mean, Anthropic was growing at 10x. Open AAI
00:19:36
was growing at 3x and it looked like >> and then the servers started going down.
00:19:39
Did you see that this week? The server going down. People were in my office were complaining we can't get on claud.
00:19:45
>> Listen, competition brings out the best in everyone. Anthropic forced open AI to
00:19:50
compete. Google's forced open AI to compete in consumer. I just hope the market stays competitive for as long as
00:19:55
possible. I do think that's what's best for consumers, our economy, and for our
00:20:00
country overall. Let me just say one other area where I think OpenAI had a good week is in this red-hot area of
00:20:10
cyber. Obviously, Anthropic made a huge splash with Mythos. It hasn't been commercially released. Their compute
00:20:16
constraint, but as a proof of concept or training model, it hit a new level of capabilities with cyber. But now OpenAI
00:20:22
has released a new model called GPT 5.5 cyber which has just been through a bunch of tests and they've shown this
00:20:29
was testing done by the AI security institute that GPT 5.5 is the second model to complete one of their
00:20:36
multi-step cyber attack simulations end to end. So it has the same level of capability as Mythos and it does appear
00:20:43
to be commercially ready. You know, they've got the compute to serve it. So I do think that that's a
00:20:51
big accomplishment. I mean, look, we knew that other cyber models were coming. It wasn't just going to be
00:20:56
Mythos. In fact, within 6 months or so, all the Frontier models are going to have Mythos level cyber capability. But
00:21:03
it's impressive that OpenAI got this GPT 5.5 cyber out. so quickly and I think
00:21:11
5.5 might be the first cyber model that cyber defenders actually get to use because again I don't think they're as
00:21:18
compute constrained as anthropic is >> and this is an incredible opportunity
00:21:22
you know for the crowd strikes and PaloAlto networks of the world both of which have been on the program they come
00:21:29
out and they start attacking this space man you could really see everything get tightened up and this
00:21:37
could be an incredible revenue stream for everybody who's got whether it's
00:21:41
cursor claude or open eye or Gemini. This is an amazing opportunity to tighten up as much as it is to get
00:21:48
attacked. >> Can I make a point about that? Cuz look, there is so much fear right now almost
00:21:52
the level of panic about mythos. People are treating it like a doomsday weapon or something like that. It's not. is
00:21:58
simply that the frontier models have reached the point where they're capable
00:22:02
of automating cyber activities just like they're capable of automating coding.
00:22:08
But that means that a model could power up a cyber attacker or cyber defender the same way they can power up a coder
00:22:16
and allow them to discover a lot more vulnerabilities. So there is obviously a risk there. But I think it's important
00:22:22
to understand that Mythos or GPT 5.5, it doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It
00:22:28
just discovers them. The bugs were already in the code. They were sitting there waiting for some hacker to
00:22:33
discover. If we can now use AI to find these bugs in advance, these vulnerabilities and patch them, then you
00:22:41
actually harden our infrastructure and and you harden our security. I also believe that this leap from let's call
00:22:49
it preAI cyber to post AAI cyber it's going to be I think a big one-time upgrade cycle because again you're going
00:22:55
to find all these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities but I think that once we get past that upgrade cycle you're going
00:23:02
to reach a new equilibrium between AI powered cyber offense and AI powered cyber defense it's going to become a lot
00:23:08
more normal it's not going to feel like this huge disruption which is to say I
00:23:12
think you know people are treating this as like some existential threat. I don't
00:23:17
think it is as long as everyone does what they're supposed to do, which is use the new capabilities to harden their
00:23:22
code bases and infrastructure and security before the hackers get a hold of these capabilities.
00:23:27
>> Yeah. And if Chimath, if you were to look at this to build on Sax's point,
00:23:32
there are about 5 million or so security experts in the world. We talked about token cost. 40 hours of tokens just
00:23:39
pounding it, you know, a week. You could create another five million for a hundred dollars per chief security
00:23:47
officer per security expert. So it's the volume of security expert agent saxs to
00:23:52
your point. Yeah. You could have 50 50 million of them 100 million of them. They're not finding something unique.
00:23:59
They're just they never sleep. They're relentless in their pursuit of these
00:24:03
problems. It's a really great point. >> Just kind of just refine that. So yeah,
00:24:06
there's probably 5 million people in the cyber industry, but there's probably
00:24:09
only a few thousand really elite hackers. >> Sure, >> those hackers didn't have the time to go
00:24:14
after the entire surface area of every possible attack vector out there. And so if you train a model to do what they do,
00:24:22
obviously, like you said, it can operate with a scale and speed that a human hacker can't. So obviously, you know,
00:24:28
what you need to do is get these tools in the hands of the white hats, let them do the cyber attacks themselves to then
00:24:35
find the vulnerabilities and patch them before the black hats get a hold of these capabilities. But I think it's
00:24:41
just just one last point on this, I'll stop. It's just it's really important to
00:24:44
understand that the Chinese models are going to have these capabilities within approximately 6 months.
00:24:49
>> Oh, they have them now in Deep Seek 4 for sure. They've got some level. Well,
00:24:52
no. Deepc4, I mean, Dec 4 is impressive in a lot of ways, but its capability is not at the frontier. It's maybe 80 80
00:25:00
85%. Let's call it the American frontier. >> Chimoff, you wanted to get in on this.
00:25:03
Let's get Chim in. >> Two things. The reason that this is even possible is because humans are
00:25:10
errorprone and when humans code, they create holes. And so, humans exploiting humans is where we've been for a long
00:25:18
time. Now we have computers exploiting humans because the computers go and seek out all these bugs that humans wrote.
00:25:25
In the next phase it'll be machines versus machines. And so I think the nature of cyber is
00:25:31
going to completely change. Probably in the next five or six years there'll be
00:25:34
so much reason to rewrite all of the software that runs the world. In one part because you're going to be
00:25:42
asked to show more operating leverage and revenue growth, but in another part because everything else that was
00:25:48
handmade in the past is just fundamentally insecure. Either way, all roads will lead to all the operational
00:25:54
software that runs the world will get rewritten. More and more of it will be written by machines. More and more of it
00:26:00
will be impregnable as a result. But then the cyber threat actually will only increase because then you're going to
00:26:06
try to figure out how to use a machine to inject something into another machine so that some agentic loop inject some
00:26:11
malware or injects a bad token. And I think that's a very complicated thing.
00:26:16
What I will tell you is I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say this, but
00:26:22
a very good probably the best cyber security company in the world run by one of the very best CEOs in the world who
00:26:29
may or may not be speaking at liquidity would tell you that they have penetrated
00:26:36
and can essentially manipulate every model. Let me just let me just say it roughly that way.
00:26:43
>> Okay, perfect. Yeah. And I uh at the breakthrough prize uh which three of the
00:26:47
four of us were at I talked to George Kurtz the other person you were kind of describing was not that
00:26:52
>> sitting beside Nash. Yeah I'm talking about >> Nash and George are the two guys leading
00:26:56
this Palo Alto Networks Crowd Strike and they understand the what George told me
00:27:01
was there is just a line out the door of people who want this product or service.
00:27:06
And if you look at it, Freeberg, like the murder rate, like we're sitting here
00:27:11
with the lowest murder rate in the history of humanity. It has gone down massively in our lifetimes, but
00:27:17
massively over the arc of history. I think that's what's going to happen with
00:27:19
cyber. There is only so many attack vectors, and the remaining attack vectors are just going to be human
00:27:24
factors, right, Freeberg? That's always been the case. And as we make the software more resilient, then the the
00:27:31
weak link is, you know, the secretary who puts her post-it note, you know, with the password there or the
00:27:38
accountant who, you know, uses their dog's name plus one, two, three for their password, right? That's the the
00:27:44
historical one. Okay, let's any anything you want to add, Free Bird, as we wrap
00:27:48
there? Oh, that's >> Why is your bed so messy, by the way? Why can't you just ask the room service
00:27:52
to come in? >> Listen, I'll tell I can tell you what happened. Listen, I'm here in Atlanta.
00:27:55
And also, why don't you have a suite like where there's two rooms? Like, is
00:27:58
it just one room? This hotel only has one. >> It's just one room. Yes.
00:28:01
>> You know, either you're cheap or poor. Which one is it? I'm cheap. Here's I'll
00:28:06
tell you what. Here's a situation. I'm in Atlanta for the Knicks game tonight.
00:28:09
>> You're in one room. >> Here's what I do. I just want to explain
00:28:12
to you value for value. Some people spend their money on private jets and they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I
00:28:18
spend 30,000 on courtside seats. I don't want the suite. I want to put it into
00:28:21
the seat side. >> You can do both. I guess I could do both, too. I don't I'm I'm in the
00:28:26
process of becoming >> I don't understand >> of embracing my richness. Okay.
00:28:31
>> If you've already convinced yourself that you should spend $30,000 for
00:28:35
courtside tickets, which I think is outrageous, but okay. You've already convinced yourself like 10k each, but
00:28:40
yeah. Yeah. >> A hotel room that has two rooms. Okay. >> Probably cost 15% more than what you're
00:28:46
paying. >> It's 2x, but yes, you're right. >> I'll get the I'll get the hotel room. 20
00:28:50
or 20% more, but you room like 200 bucks a night. So you pay 400 a night. You get
00:28:54
another hotel. >> I mean it's it's Atlanta. The most I'm in the best hotel the most expensive
00:28:58
hotel is 500 a night in Atlanta. It's no big deal. But everything's sold out
00:29:02
because all the Knicks people are coming here. >> So you're selling me double that would
00:29:04
have been a thousand and you couldn't spend,000. >> Everything is sold out because the
00:29:08
Knicks are here. >> So we have to look at your dirty beds. >> It's gross.
00:29:11
>> The bed's not that dirty. Come on. Just deal with it. Okay. Take it out and
00:29:14
post. >> I have a private jet story about flying to Atlanta. >> You reminded me. Okay. So yeah, there
00:29:22
was some event there. So I I flew my team there, you know, there's a few people on my plane and it's kind of a
00:29:28
long flight. Was it like 4 hours or something >> from the back? Yeah. >> Yeah. So I went in the back to to sleep.
00:29:34
Well, first, you know, we we started the flight and I had a few bottles of Papy Van Winkle on on the plane. And so we
00:29:40
started off with like a drink and then I went in the back and and fell asleep and
00:29:43
I woke up basically when we landed. >> So I come out and like all three bottles
00:29:47
are basically cashed of like Happy Van Wink. >> Oops. Those were like two grand a
00:29:52
bottle. >> No, no, they're more. These were like antique bottles. Like one of them was
00:29:56
>> I have one of those from your plane. I have one of those from the old Falcon.
00:29:58
Yeah. >> Yeah. They were like these vintage >> $4,000. I remember. Yeah.
00:30:03
>> Anyway, you can't even find this [ __ ] anymore. So these guys, they asked me
00:30:07
like when we land like, "Hey, Sax, how much did it cost for you to fly us to
00:30:12
this event?" And I said, "Well, about $8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 of
00:30:17
Happy Van Winkle." Well, you gota you got to fuel the the vibes as well as the plane. It's uh
00:30:25
>> Is Atlanta nice? I've never really >> Do those people still work for you or
00:30:28
are they are they uh >> they called in Atlanta? Um is Atlanta nice? Listen, last year I went to the
00:30:34
Detroit games and that city was on the rebound. Atlanta has an incredible opportunity to rebound. I'll say it that
00:30:40
way. There's a great opportunity for them to upgrade the city. I I went to Waffle House at midnight last night.
00:30:46
There was no shootings. Okay, let's keep moving. By the way, do you get royalty
00:30:49
points at the Best Western Atlanta or No, >> I get double points because I use my
00:30:54
Best Western uh Visa card. Yeah, it's everywhere you want it to be. All right.
00:30:59
Use the promo code Jcal and get a thousand extra points. In other Open AI news, Musk versus Alman, the trial of
00:31:08
the century or maybe the decade has started. Elon is of course accusing Open AI of breach of charitable trust, unjust
00:31:15
enrichment. He's accusing Open AAI of essentially flipping a nonprofit into a
00:31:21
for-profit. He's seeking 150 billion in damages that they revert back to a nonprofit that Alman and Brockman be
00:31:28
removed. And there were some fireworks between Elon and the Open AI lawyers. Elon kind of leveled up the discussion.
00:31:34
He said, quote, "If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of
00:31:39
charitable giving in America will be destroyed. That's my concern." Obviously, there's a ton of interesting
00:31:47
nuances here. Specifically, Greg Brockman keeping a diary where he was journal maxing his plans uh like a Bond
00:31:55
villain here. And uh the excerpts from his diary include conclusion, we truly want the BC Corp. The true answer is
00:32:04
that we want Elon out. If 3 months later we're doing BCorp, then it was a lie.
00:32:09
Can't see us turning this into a forprofit without a nasty fight. I'm just thinking about the office and we're
00:32:15
in the office and this story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him. In the end, it's still about
00:32:20
wanting a for-profit just without him. yada yada yada. Freeberg, your thoughts on this case? Is Elon going to win? I
00:32:27
just don't know why Greg Brockman's got a freaking diary where he's like
00:32:31
literally documenting. I mean, I love the guy, but what the [ __ ] is he thinking? Like, you're just sitting here
00:32:36
at home and like, let me write about the the crime I'm committing or let me write
00:32:40
like and let me record it. And by the way, let me never delete it. I don't understand this.
00:32:45
>> It's not just journal maxing. It's discovery maxing. >> It's smoking gun maxing.
00:32:51
>> I don't get it. I don't get it, man. >> I mean, do you guys remember from the
00:32:57
wire in that scene where the guy's like, "Is you taking notes on a criminal
00:33:02
conspiracy?" He's got everybody in the room. Can we play that clip? It's like,
00:33:08
>> "What are you doing, Greg? [ __ ] is you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy?
00:33:14
What the [ __ ] is you thinking, man? >> If you're going to commit a crime, you
00:33:18
do not write down the date and time of the crime in your journal. >> Well, look, we don't know it's a crime.
00:33:24
Let's not. >> Okay, sure. >> A crime, but yes, you keeping shenanigans. Jamat, do you keep a diary?
00:33:32
>> What do you think, Juel? Do you keep a diary? >> I I believe ruminate. No, I'll tell you
00:33:38
right now, rumination is the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a [ __ ] about your feelings. Writing your feelings
00:33:45
down is only going to make you miserable. Talking to your spouse about your feelings.
00:33:50
>> Just go to a beautiful dinner, sit courtside at the next, and do what I've
00:33:54
been doing for 30 years. >> [ __ ] maxing. >> [ __ ] maxing. And the register goes up.
00:34:00
All you have to do is work. Start new projects. Nine out of 10 foul. Place nine out of 10 bets. One wins and you're
00:34:06
golden. Go sit courtside at the Knicks game. >> Keep going. Life's too short.
00:34:10
>> And just keep moving forward. Don't write anything down. Period. Full stop.
00:34:15
>> It's good advice. Yeah, I just The biggest surprise to me was this guy's
00:34:18
got a diary. I just I don't know anyone that has a diary. I've never heard of
00:34:21
this. So anyway, that was shocking. Besides that, I have no view on what's going to happen with the case or what
00:34:27
the judge will do. >> I have no comment on the case either. I think it's weird that Poly Market hasn't
00:34:33
budged even as all of this discovery has been published. It's effectively at 42
00:34:37
or 43% that Elon wins. So, one of the friends in our group chat said what may just happen is that Elon technically
00:34:45
wins and he's just credited back the $40 million. And so, maybe that's what this
00:34:51
poll is front running. But on a totally separate note, I think Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but
00:34:59
this idea of just keep moving forward, don't ruminate, I think is very good general life advice for everybody to
00:35:06
follow. >> The modern-day therapy industrial complex and the medication industrial
00:35:11
complex, I believe, is >> around rumination. Well, it does pivot around rumination.
00:35:16
>> Yes. >> That is the gateway drug to all these things. >> Yep. Talk about your problems.
00:35:21
You know, when these people go to therapy, you ever hear these people? Howard Stern's like, "I've been in
00:35:24
therapy with the same person 2 or three days a week for 40 years." I'm like,
00:35:27
"Okay, what's the incentive for the therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an
00:35:31
hour? There is none." Then they lose a revenue stream. They lose a customer.
00:35:34
It's all a giant [ __ ] fraud. Facts. Uh, in terms of this case, >> I wouldn't go that far. I do think that
00:35:40
there's a lot of value in kind of untying some of these Gordian knots that people have because of how they grew up.
00:35:47
But there's a difference between that and being specific and just randomly ruminating cuz I don't think there's a
00:35:53
lot of productive. >> You've got an acute issue like in trauma in your life. Yeah, sure. Unpack it,
00:35:59
figure it out. I'm just talking about this neverending self-improvement, you know, ruminating thing. Uh but
00:36:05
getting back on topic here, Saxs, what's the And we're we're talking about
00:36:11
a jury, I believe, in Oakland. >> No, but it's a bench trial. This is important. It's a bench trial where the
00:36:16
jury is advisory in capacity, >> but ultimately that judge, she will make the final call
00:36:22
>> and she'll do the damages. And so, is this a case sacks of like we've got a
00:36:28
Bay Area jury judge and we've got Elon who's considered, you know, a bit
00:36:35
right-wing and people don't all agree in that area in terms of his politics. And
00:36:39
then you have this Sam Alman New Yorker story and people finding out that so many different people feel they got
00:36:47
screwed by him. You put these two things together, it's impossible to handicap
00:36:50
where this turns out. Sachs, your thoughts? >> Well, yeah, I don't think this is about
00:36:55
politics. I mean, I guess you could argue that what Elon is seeking, which is to protect the charity, is if
00:37:03
anything a left-coded sort of principle, although I don't really think it's left
00:37:07
versus right. Look, I don't want to take sides on this trial. I'm just watching
00:37:11
like everyone else. The last time I weighed in on some Elon litigation, I got deposed for six hours. Remember
00:37:18
that? Cuz they just assume that somehow I know something, >> right? >> I've never talked to Elon about the
00:37:22
case. I don't know anything about it. >> Yeah. >> I'm going to see what happens like
00:37:26
everyone else. Now, one thing I I will say having just read some of the coverage is that apparently the company
00:37:35
at some point did offer Elon shares in the company, but he thought that there was something kind of icky about it. Do
00:37:43
you remember this that >> Yes. Because at at one point I said on our show when this dispute started
00:37:49
happening but before it became a court case I said look if Open AAI at a certain point decided they had the wrong
00:37:54
structure they should just gone and done a make right with Elon and he should have been a shareholder on the cap
00:38:00
table. What I didn't know is that apparently they did try to do something like that but Elon turned it down
00:38:06
because he did want the entity to remain a charitable entity. In other >> had a principled view of it according to
00:38:15
the reports and was like no we're trying to save humanity and then you're giving
00:38:20
this keys to the kingdom to Microsoft that's all come out >> and I I also have not talked to Elon
00:38:26
about any of this but my guess is like most of these things there'll be some
00:38:32
sort of settlement or something here but maybe he takes it to the mat who knows Judge Rogers who's doing this
00:38:38
61-year-old Obama appointee politics has played a role. Saxs, they have had to tell the jury like however you feel
00:38:45
about these individuals politically, whatever, please put that aside. But of note is that she oversaw the Epic Games
00:38:51
versus Apple trial over App Store exclusively ruled in favor of Apple with some caveats um that they don't have a
00:38:59
monopoly, etc., etc. So, this is going to be a really interesting one. And I think the worst case scenario is open AI
00:39:07
for for OpenAI is they have to unravel this somehow and that would delay the IPO. That would cause chaos in
00:39:14
shareholders and I guess the best case is some sort of settlement. And if Elon put the first 40 or $50 million in, he's
00:39:21
he's due 10 20 30% of the company after dilution. All right, let's keep moving through the
00:39:27
docket. Lots more to discuss and uh good luck to everybody in their lawsuit and those of you betting on market all-in
00:39:34
summit selling up fast. Our fifth edition Los Angeles September 13th to 15th. Go to allin.com/events
00:39:41
and uh speakers are going to be top tier. Apparently Freeberg is having this as his major creative outlet. I heard
00:39:49
some back channel chimoff today that he's going to be doing Broadway musical
00:39:55
uh illusionist. tap. I got a tap dancing situation. >> He's literally going fullon entertainer.
00:40:02
This is going to be vaudeville sachs wrapped up. He's just going to take it to a whole new level. Musical numbers
00:40:10
>> like Nathan Lane. >> I think if you're coding that it's going
00:40:15
to be his big gay summit. Yes, it could be a big gay summit. >> Might be our last year in LA, guys.
00:40:22
>> Why? >> Not might be. >> Might be. Oh, everybody wants to go to
00:40:25
Vegas apparently. Those bones, baby. Can you imagine leaving the summit for lunch and going
00:40:33
and playing crabs? Jimoth, we get a fresh. Yes, I can. Yes, I can imagine. >> I got some bricks. Oh, I got some bricks
00:40:41
right here. Let's go. Yum, yum. >> That way Sachs can come. >> Yeah, Sax is like, I'm never setting
00:40:48
foot in California, but I will. You know, we're doing a couple live events. Are you coming to them?
00:40:54
>> Liquidity or something different? >> Liquidity. And then there's the the
00:40:57
all-in summit happens in September. >> Yeah, I'm going to do those, too.
00:41:00
>> All right. Big tech smashed their earnings on Thursday. Google, Microsoft,
00:41:05
Amazon, and Meta all reported. I don't know why they do this on the same night,
00:41:09
folks, but they do. And performance was spectacular. It was great. However, the capex announcements were really the
00:41:19
story here. Let me just cue this up and show the chart. $725 billion in capex guidance in 2026
00:41:30
from but four companies. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta. Amazon leading the pack with 200 billion, 190
00:41:37
billion each for Microsoft and Google, 145 billion for Meta. You add Grock, you add OpenAI and some other players to
00:41:45
these plans. And we haven't heard from the new Apple CEO yet, but he's going to
00:41:48
be taking over. And he's going to have some plans here. I'm sure we are going
00:41:53
to see the large a trillion dollars a trillion dollars in buildout over the next year. I don't know if this is even
00:41:58
possible, but this is all being driven by AI and cloud computing. Google Cloud, which includes the Google Suite, that
00:42:08
grew 63% year-onear. Let that number sink in. 63% on 20 billion in revenue. That's in a quarter.
00:42:16
Microsoft cloud, that includes Azure, Windows Server, SQL Server, they bundled some things together there to get the
00:42:22
number to go up. Uh that grew 30% on 34.7 billion in revenue. Amazon Web Services, the original cloud, that grew
00:42:31
28% on 37.6 billion in revenue. That's a bit of a pure play. Just counts Amazon's
00:42:37
web services. Obviously, these are all moving to NeoClouds. These are all serving AI jobs and tokens now. They
00:42:44
have a massive customer base and the customers from the smallest startups all the way to the biggest frontier models
00:42:49
cannot get enough compute and it is going to the bottom line. But this is shrinking Chimath cash flow massively.
00:42:57
These were free cash flow machines, the largest money printing machines in the history of humanity. But they are giving
00:43:05
up on free cash flow, stock buybacks and dividends and the focus on those three to invest in infrastructure. Amazon's
00:43:13
free cash flow down 97% Google, Microsoft and Meta down 12, 12 and 8% respectively. your thoughts on
00:43:21
this free cash flow, the end of the free cash flow deluge and the massive massive
00:43:27
investment we're seeing in capex. I think we're seeing a very important structural shift in the capital markets.
00:43:36
I think the last 20 or 30 years, well 20 years, it's been that the mag 7 just
00:43:42
kind of ran away with it. that these big companies got bigger and bigger and it absorbed all of these investment dollars
00:43:49
and the biggest reason was that it had these very assetike business models, right? You just built some more software
00:43:56
and it just has all this leverage and it all just kind of worked except maybe for
00:44:00
Amazon cuz they needed physical infrastructure for warehouses and delivery and whatnot. But by and large
00:44:04
it was a very asset light investment cycle. Now all of a sudden the pendulum is swinging violently in the other
00:44:11
direction. And there's something that I think people misunderstand which is as
00:44:15
it moves back to these asset heavy infrastructure investments. The hyperscalers are signing checks that
00:44:25
I mean I suspect their body can cash but there's a world in which they can't.
00:44:29
I'll give you an example. You know when Microsoft convinced the owners of three
00:44:33
Mile Island to turn their >> nuclear site back on? >> Yeah. >> Do you know what their Ford purchase
00:44:41
agreement was? It was for more than 2x the prevailing spot rate for energy. More than 2x. The problem is that's not
00:44:47
for an enormous percentage of their overall energy needs. So if you play that out and you think
00:44:56
these five or six companies all of a sudden are not just spending Jason 700 billion a year of capex which they are
00:45:05
but then from an operating cash flow they're going to be spending 2x the prevailing spot rate because they just
00:45:11
want guaranteed demand into the future. Where's all this cash going to go? It's
00:45:18
not going to go to the shareholder and it's not going to stay on the balance sheet. These
00:45:24
companies will now get levered. They're going to get highly sophisticated around
00:45:29
the financial engineering. They'll have more debt. They'll have all kinds of
00:45:33
different vehicles and term loans and revolvers and all of this stuff. And so, they're going to look like this
00:45:39
big bulky industrial business in five years. And I'm not sure that there's a
00:45:44
good valuation case to be made at that point. And so I think it may be simpler and
00:45:50
this is what I tweeted to just follow the dollars like a trillion dollars a year going out of the hyperscalers.
00:45:57
Where is it going? Just follow those dollars and buy those companies because those companies are already underpriced.
00:46:03
This is uh obviously reminiscent of something we all experienced. Uh Nick, can you pull up the Cisco chart I just
00:46:08
sent you and put it at max? uh we had a massive buildout of the infrastructure of the internet in the late 1990s and
00:46:17
into 2000. And what that caused was a lot of aggressive companies to do massive amounts of spending, a lot of
00:46:23
retail investors to embrace these stocks like we're seeing with people trying to
00:46:28
get into these private companies and saxs. Look at the 2000 peak of Cisco. This is the most extraordinary chart
00:46:35
ever. It took them 25 years to get back to that peak and uh they had a lost two decades and we had a massive amount of
00:46:44
fiber that wound up getting bought. We talked about that a couple years ago on the program. But there's something for
00:46:48
you to build off of here when you look at this massive infrastructure. You think it's going to be Cisco systems all
00:46:54
over again, World Warcom, etc.? >> No, I really don't. The issue we had in
00:46:58
2000 was dark fiber. You had all this infrastructure being built out and it wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs
00:47:05
today as you know Brad Gersonner likes to say. So what's driving the capex now
00:47:11
is the voracious demand for compute for tokens and the demand is now pulling forward this additional um investment in
00:47:22
infrastructure. So I think what's happened here is that the bull thesis for AI just got validated in a single
00:47:30
afternoon. I mean again you got Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, Amazon AWS, Meta, they're all basically
00:47:37
exceeding expectations, exceeding guidance in terms of where their cloud revenue would be and therefore how much
00:47:44
they're going to reinvest in capex this year. I think we were supposed to have
00:47:48
660 billion of hyperscaler capex up from 350 last year. I think there's now the
00:47:54
new estimate is it's going to be over 700. So this is you know again it's more
00:47:58
than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwind to GDP. There's another article saying
00:48:02
that I think in the last quarter AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the way, this is just the capex part. This
00:48:10
is the physical infrastructure. This is not the economic impact of the tokens that are generated inside the token
00:48:16
factory. This is the building of the factories. How do those tokens get used? like we're seeing they're being used not
00:48:23
just to do research or to answer questions but to create code. And so we're seeing this explosion of
00:48:31
productivity in software development. And we're seeing an explosion of bespoke
00:48:36
software being created and that's going to accelerate every part of the economy.
00:48:40
Every business that now wants to get code will be able to get code for the first time. Before they couldn't even
00:48:45
hire the engineers, they needed to generate it. Now they will be able to. So that is a huge unlock of productivity
00:48:52
across the economy. Then you're getting into these new use cases like the the
00:48:56
co-working use cases and agents, right? So the the workflow automations that are
00:49:01
happening, it's still early. I don't believe that this is going to replace
00:49:05
humans. We had that um in the past week, we had that crazy case of an agent deleting a production database in 9
00:49:11
seconds because because of a bug. Look, what that said to me is that >> it's not that agents aren't valuable.
00:49:18
They are valuable, but they have to be supervised. You know, this idea that you're just going to be able to like
00:49:22
automate all the jobs away. It is a massive amount of handwaving over the real technical problems and issues. The
00:49:29
agents have to be supervised. Someone has to be accountable. It's not going to
00:49:33
be the CEO. The CEO doesn't want to be accountable for thousands of agents. You
00:49:38
need people >> despite what Jack had block said. >> Yeah. Thousand direct reports is a great
00:49:43
like goal, but it's not realistic. Yeah, >> you need IT people who are savvy who can
00:49:49
supervise this and make sure it's working. They have to be accountable to the CEO. Someone has to drive the
00:49:53
productivity. It's like Bology always said, AI is not end to end is middle to
00:49:58
middle. You have to have someone to do the prompting and you have to have someone to do the validating and I would
00:50:02
add the supervision and accountability. So anyway, the larger point though is I'm speaking to the fact that I don't
00:50:08
think there's going to be this huge job loss associated with this productivity
00:50:12
boom that we're going to get. And in fact, I think what's actually happening
00:50:15
now is that AI is becoming synonymous with the American economy. I mean, the fact that it's generating 75% of GDP,
00:50:23
you have this capex explosion, this energy explosion that feeds it, and again, just the beginning of the
00:50:31
applications that are being unleashed by these new token factories. I think it's
00:50:35
all a very, very positive thing. and all these doomers who are trying to throw a
00:50:40
wet blanket on it or constantly scaring the daylights out of people. I mean, what do they want the American economy
00:50:47
to do? Just to stop I mean, they just don't want any progress. I mean, like again, you know, when you talk about
00:50:52
stopping AI or halting AI progress? What you're really doing is stopping the
00:50:57
American economy now. You're basically saying you don't want economic growth.
00:51:01
AI is now synonymous with the growth of the American economy. And if there's no
00:51:06
economic growth, there's not gonna be money to pay for all the social programs. There's not gonna be money to
00:51:09
pay down the national debt. There's not gonna be money to basically build up our
00:51:13
national defense. All these things we want to spend money on. We have to have a vibrant economy. And that is now
00:51:19
synonymous with AI. So I know that AI may not be popular. I see those polls. But having a strong economy is popular.
00:51:26
And I believe that those things are now synonymous. It's almost like there was
00:51:30
some architect or ZAR who set up the chessboard in the first year of this to make sure that it was ultra competitive.
00:51:38
>> President Trump set the table on this. >> Absolutely. With some good advice, I
00:51:41
think. Maybe. >> Freeberg, your thoughts? >> It's always good to have good advisors.
00:51:45
>> Always good to have good advisors. Absolutely. Absolutely. >> No, but look, I've said it before. The
00:51:49
president just wants America to win. >> Literally, there are people who if we
00:51:52
were looking at this, you know, I don't know, a hundred years ago, it'd be like
00:51:56
people were like, "Yeah, you know what? we shouldn't build the highway system or
00:51:58
we half built the highway system. Let's stop let's stop building the highways.
00:52:02
>> No, the highway system was funded by the federal government. There was no
00:52:05
competition. It was the most expensive on a on a inflationadjusted basis. I think it was the most expensive project
00:52:11
in US history. >> Yeah. And the railroads before that like you can't stop these things. They have
00:52:17
to keep going. It's interesting point you know there is so much demand for the
00:52:22
resource of tokens of intelligence freeberg and it's quite different than the fiber situation as Sax correctly
00:52:28
points out where we built all this but we didn't actually have an application
00:52:32
here the application is pretty um pretty wellnown and you've got a large number
00:52:38
of people in businesses who are trying to vibe code their way to success trying to push this stuff and we had an
00:52:45
interesting story referenced earlier in the show where uh Claude ate somebody's homework. This
00:52:52
is the nightmare of all nightmares. Somebody was vibe coding. Uh it was the founder of Pocket OS. Apparently, they
00:52:59
make software for rental car companies. He was using Opus 4.6 through Cursor's
00:53:03
AI platform, their coding platform, and uh you know, which is like the most expensive tier. Uh and he said he
00:53:12
configured it with enough safety rules, but the agent was working on a routine task. They saw some sort of credentiing
00:53:18
mismatch and they decided to fix the mismatch by deleting a railway volume without user confirmation and uh they
00:53:25
pushed the code from a repo to a live app and they deleted everything including the backups. Literally a scene
00:53:32
from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of Son of Anton. Hilarious. >> You gave your AI permission to overwrite
00:53:39
code in the internal file system. Were you going to tell me about this? No, I thought that was the company policy
00:53:46
these days. >> Okay, well, your AI just failed epically. >> That's unclear.
00:53:53
>> It's possible the Son of Anton decided that the most efficient way to get rid
00:53:56
of all the bugs was to get rid of all the software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial
00:54:03
neural nets are sort of a black box. So, we'll never know for sure. >> How did they get that so right, Zach?
00:54:08
Five or six years ago, art and neural networks are a black box. So, I guess we'll never know. But technically, it
00:54:14
was correct. Freeberg, when you blow up a hollow system with your vibe coding, which you were absolutely showing off in
00:54:21
front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago about how much code you're pushing, who
00:54:24
are you going to blame? You going to take responsibility yourself? Are you going to blame Cla Claude or Kurser? Who
00:54:30
are you going to blame when you blow up the entire stack over at Ohio? >> Who you blame?
00:54:37
>> Yeah, I'll blame Dario. >> You blame Dario. Okay, that's what I
00:54:40
thought. That's a correct answer. Correct answer. Blame Daario. He's the
00:54:42
one who says it's a doomsday machine. Uh, come on the prodio. 17th invitio. >> I mean, I've invited the guy like 17
00:54:52
times. He is totally going to me. He wants nothing to do with this podcast. >> Actually, let me speak to that. So, I
00:54:59
think I think that um there's maybe a misperception that this error occurred
00:55:05
because of, you know, quote unquote AI scheming, >> like kind of in that video that the AI
00:55:12
decided that the best way to get rid of bugs is to basically eliminate the codebase. This is kind of like the, you
00:55:16
know, AI is going to turn the world into paper clips type thing where somehow it'll like miss scheme. That's not
00:55:21
really what happened here. This is a case of just a of old-fashioned bugs occurring at an edge case. You know,
00:55:28
you've got the fact that this API was not designed for permissioned usage. You've got the fact that a credential
00:55:36
was left kind of lying around. Probably it should not be. There's kind of like a
00:55:40
perfect storm that caused the AI to do something or the agent to do something that didn't quite understand it was what
00:55:44
it was doing. I think that if there is a systemic problem here rather than just kind of a like a random edge case is
00:55:53
that AI still doesn't know what it doesn't know. You know, like a human would stop before deleting a production
00:56:03
database and just say, "Oh, I'm about to do something like really serious, really
00:56:06
destructive. Am I sure I want to do this?" You know, and a human would have
00:56:10
stopped and said, "Oh, wait a second. like I need to be more confident in what
00:56:13
I'm doing before I take that action. And AI still has this issue where again it
00:56:18
can be kind of overcon. This is where like the hallucinations come from is it doesn't know when it should have a low
00:56:24
confidence in its output, right? But this is why it has to be supervised. You know, the longer the time horizon for a
00:56:31
task, the more likely it is to go off the rails. >> And a drift. Exactly. And this is why I
00:56:38
think people are starting to realize that this idea of eliminating all software developers was the peak of
00:56:44
inflated expectations. Yes. >> Right. There was actually a really good tweet on this by Aaron Levy who's got
00:56:50
the right take on this. Aaron retweeted Matthew Glacius who sort of sardonically
00:56:56
tweeted that 5 months in I think I've decided I don't want to vibe code. I
00:57:01
want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistants to make more better, cheaper software
00:57:07
products that they sell to me for money. >> Just lower your prices. Don't make me
00:57:10
vibe code is the translation. >> Yeah. I mean, I think like rare win for for Madaglacius there. Anyway, Aaron
00:57:17
Levy then says Agent Coding is a huge win for software developers that want to get more done
00:57:23
and it's fantastic for anyone curious to learn how to start coding. What it's
00:57:28
less great for is casually building complex software that you have to maintain on an ongoing basis and take
00:57:33
all the risk for upgrades, maintenance, keeping up to date with latest security issues, you know, the bugs, cyber, those
00:57:40
are taxes on most knowledge workers who aren't familiar with the system. >> It's not a tax. It's a huge risk.
00:57:47
>> Yes, it's a risk has to be managed if you don't. People will get fired because
00:57:52
there will be some public companies where some goofball tries to vibe code their way out of something and they're
00:57:56
going to torch the enterprise value. It's going to be glorious to watch because we're all going to laugh and
00:58:01
realize that was stupid and should never have happened in the first place. >> Yeah. I mean, it's there is a chance
00:58:07
that this improves to the point passes trial of disillusionment and becomes super productive and you'll be able to
00:58:13
get an agent to do reasonable things without deleting your data set. But we have a way to go. Here is your, you
00:58:20
know, this is the tech adoption chart. Basically, you got a technology gets triggered. You have the trial, you have
00:58:24
this peak of inflated expectations. You go into the trial of disillusionment and
00:58:27
then the slope of enlightenment invest and eventually it becomes deer and it's
00:58:32
an opportunity. Hey, uh, Freedberg, you have become reddit tide curious. You have and also
00:58:43
>> tell me tell me about rea cuz I want it. I want to get on it. M >> I want to use it and I need you to tell
00:58:50
Nat that it's okay for me to take it. >> I I have a friend who has some advice as
00:58:54
well. >> Freeberg, the coverage is coming out of this phase three clinical trial data
00:58:59
release that Lily put out last month. So everyone's going crazy over the data
00:59:05
which continues to show pretty amazing results. So unlike trazepatide which is kind of Lily's main
00:59:15
product today, it's a which is a dual agonist. It's got two peptides in it
00:59:18
that that bind to different receptors, the GLP1, the GIP receptor. This other one now also binds to glucagon, which is
00:59:24
a third receptor. And that glucagon receptor binding peptide causes the cells to increase their metabolism,
00:59:31
which actually accelerates fat energy consumption over what would typically be muscle
00:59:38
energy consumption. It's more likely to burn up fat early on, which causes more
00:59:44
quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle loss. And some of the other data that's
00:59:50
now coming out shows non-HDL cholesterol down 27%, triglycerides down 41%. >> Liver fat down 80% to
01:00:00
>> 80% reduction of liver fat. A1C drops from 7.9% to 6% in 40 weeks, which is
01:00:08
amazing, by the way. If you're diabetic and your A1C drops that much in a couple
01:00:12
of months, it's literally a life-saving product. The average user in this phase
01:00:17
3 trial saw their weight decline from 214 pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's
01:00:23
compared to six pounds on placebo in 40 weeks. And you know, modest side effects. 20% people felt more nauseous
01:00:32
than the people that were on the placebo. There's a lot of other separate studies that are being done now that are
01:00:37
showing significant reductions in inflammatory signaling molecules. So systemic signaling of like hey cells are
01:00:46
in distress triggers this kind of inflammatory process that can have a lot of other damage to your body can
01:00:53
accelerate aging. And so one of the other conversations is that retride might actually be kind of a deaging drug
01:01:00
as well. Hercules, Hercules, Hercules, you know, and a lot of the studies, by the way, are done on the the the very
01:01:08
high dose, 12 milligram dose, but you could probably get this thing dosed down to 2 milligrams and still see a lot of
01:01:13
the anti-inflammatory maintenance and other benefits. I'm no doctor, but people are going nuts over
01:01:19
this being more widely useful than just for clinical obesity or type when the FDA when's the projected date for
01:01:27
>> 2027. Mid 27. >> That's what they're saying. Could happen
01:01:30
sooner. I mean, the data is in the, you know, the FDA will take their time to evaluate it, but I think given the way
01:01:37
this is all looking, >> could happen sooner, could happen sometime later this year. Swim Chimath
01:01:43
Swim said it's incredible and that uh it's living up to the hype in their
01:01:49
experience. >> Who? >> Swim. >> What is that? What is that? >> Someone who isn't me. Swim.
01:01:55
>> Oh, >> this is a Reddit term. Someone who isn't me said who has a guy swim has a guy and
01:02:02
has cycled on reddatride and does push-ups and says muscle gain has been spectacular
01:02:10
no muscle loss and a lowering of fat. >> If you go on X and you just search up
01:02:16
rea >> Mhm. >> it's like incredible. You see these like 65 year old guys that go from a dadbod
01:02:24
to looking like an incredibly ripped athlete in weeks. And and I I mean I'm shocked. And then for me I
01:02:34
don't need that help per se, but my liver health is important to me. My cardiac health because I'm South Asian
01:02:39
and it just looks like a wonder drug. I can't wait. When you starve your body,
01:02:43
when you turn off the the appetite, which is the GLP-1 agonist function, normally your body goes into this kind
01:02:49
of mode of starvation and you have this process by which your body tries to generate energy from your existing
01:02:55
cells. And because muscle is much denser than fat, you can have a favoring of muscle tissue being kind of broken up
01:03:03
over fat tissue. But what this new agonist, this glucagon agonist that they put into this neutrutide
01:03:10
is it favors fat burning over muscle burning. And so that actually can drive short-term use at low dose for people to
01:03:18
cut weight and maintain muscle and get ripped. And so that's why a lot of people in the kind of fitness community
01:03:23
are talking about, hey, I want to get access to this and get on it for a while. So you'll see a lot more hype
01:03:27
probably in that community as well as the all the health effects. It just feels like we're about to have an
01:03:34
absolute avalanche of peptides to choose from. >> On November of 2025, Lily cut a deal
01:03:39
with the Trump administration. I saw this to drop the price on Drespatide pretty significantly. I think it's like
01:03:44
50 bucks on Medicare. >> 50 bucks from Medicare. Yeah. >> Yeah. Which is a pretty cheap price
01:03:48
point, but it starts to make sense as you think about the portfolio of Lily products. You get Tzepide for 50 bucks,
01:03:54
but if you want to upgrade, get the Retatride. That's the high premium product and that's where they're going
01:03:58
to start the Mercedes to the Honda. I'm sure if I'm Lily and I'm sitting there
01:04:02
and I'm looking at this data coming out, I'm like, "My god, people will pay for
01:04:05
this and that starts to become sort of like the upgrade to the BMW or the Model S plat if you will."
01:04:10
>> Yeah. The Trappetide is like the one bedroomedroom messy bed hotel room
01:04:15
>> and the other one's the sweetide is like the twobedroom suite. >> Well, you can also, by the way, you guys
01:04:22
know I'm a spokesman for Row. They also have the Waggoi pill uh row.co/twist
01:04:28
cotwist uh to get your >> Wait, are you a paid talking about Are you a paid What are you talking about?
01:04:36
We're putting Charles Barkley and >> we're not having sales team and then you come over on Allin and you
01:04:44
start promoting. >> No, no, no, no. Trust me, we'll get one of those as well. We'll get a row.
01:04:48
Sponsorship here. >> What was the ro pill that you had me get? What was it called?
01:04:51
>> Oh, sparks. Sparks. Sparks. Did you take it? >> I have taken it and now
01:04:56
>> Amore please. No, not >> maybe just a half of a lousy. >> I want to hear the story. I want to hear
01:05:01
the story. Go. >> It's so out of control. >> I told what I told you.
01:05:06
>> So then what happens is Nat and I are like, you can't you can't just randomly
01:05:09
use it. It's scheduled. We discuss it. We put it on the calendar. >> You need a plan.
01:05:13
>> You need a plan. >> You need a plan. Can't go in >> because otherwise otherwise it's too
01:05:17
much. You just can't randomly take it. >> What do you mean? >> It's going to be a sesh.
01:05:22
>> It's a whole thing, man. It's like I don't have the energy for that.
01:05:25
>> It's an extended session. You you have to be well rested. This don't do this at
01:05:29
1:00 a.m. This is like a 10 p.m. This is like a No, this is more like a This is more like on vacation, you know, like
01:05:35
>> 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., you know, to noon, you know, you got to really
01:05:40
>> you got to really schedule it. >> Schedule it because kids around
01:05:44
>> otherwise it's got to be empty. >> Otherwise, it's unfair to her and it's
01:05:48
just a li it's a lie. Put it out. >> It's a It's a big commitment literally.
01:05:52
>> You You look embarrassed, Jim. Do you feel embarrassed talking about it? It's
01:05:56
just a lot, man. It's like It's a lot to handle. It's a lot. >> It's If you want to get the extra 20% in
01:06:02
your performance, >> it's a lot, bro. >> It's a lot. It's basically over time.
01:06:07
>> What happened? What happened was I was like, "Oh, what is this thing?" Jason's
01:06:10
like, "Dude, you must get it. You must get it." So, we got it. We tried it and
01:06:14
>> we were like, "What the was that?" And so, then I've been trying to bleed the
01:06:18
pills out. So, I gave some to Stant Tang. I'm like, "Stanley, you try it."
01:06:22
Literally, he's dealing them like cards >> but when we're having poker dinner, I'm
01:06:27
like, does anybody want to try these things? But these what is it? Rose sparks. Is that rose sparks? Shout out
01:06:31
to my friends out. All right, let's keep moving here. Freedberg, guys. Friedberg
01:06:36
had his own personal Super Bowl. You see me getting ready for Nick's playoff
01:06:40
season. I get my courtside. Freeberg had the equivalence acts. He went to the Supreme Court in order to hear them talk
01:06:49
about chemicals. This was a big deal for him. The Supreme Court coming together.
01:06:54
Did you wear it? Yes. The Monsanto trial happened in the Supreme Court and he went he got courtside. He went to the
01:07:01
Supreme Court and listened in the building. Have you guys ever seen a live Supreme Court hearing?
01:07:05
>> No. I'd love to. >> I'd love to. Tax, have you been? >> No, I haven't actually.
01:07:09
>> I mean, honest honestly, I think it was one of the most amazing experiences I've
01:07:13
ever had. There was a massive protest out front. We went through the marshall's office to get in. And that
01:07:18
building, you walk in, it's like sacred. It's all marble. It's you're not allowed
01:07:23
to talk. You have to be super quiet when you're in the building. Like they keep
01:07:25
going like you're in some quiet library. It's like people treat it with this
01:07:30
level of kind of sanctity that that and respect. And they're like, there is no
01:07:34
politics here. There is no [ __ ] There is no freedom of speech. This is the court. When you come into this
01:07:40
court, the justices tell you how you will speak, how you will behave, what you will do, and you will not speak
01:07:46
unless spoken to. You put all your stuff in a locker, you go up the stairs, you go into the the courtroom. And the
01:07:52
courtroom, it's just so amazing being in there. They have this amazing marble
01:07:55
freeze above the justices that has some of the great people of human history, Moses and these kind of amazing
01:08:01
historical figures. And then below them are the nine justices and the court case. If you guys haven't watched the
01:08:07
case, you can listen to them, I think, online. on you. Is it worth listening to?
01:08:10
>> Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. I have a question. So, >> does Robert sit in the middle cuz he's a
01:08:14
chief? Yes. >> And then do all of the right justices sit on the right? >> No, they're mixed. So, they're I think I
01:08:20
don't know I don't know the exact seating, but they're mixed in terms on
01:08:24
appointments of the court. Is >> that right? I think that's right. And
01:08:27
then so yeah, that's right. And then it kind of goes out from the middle with
01:08:30
Roberts in the middle. Roberts occasionally will name the justices and say, "Hey, do you have a question? Do
01:08:36
you have a question?" if no one's talking, but otherwise the justices will
01:08:39
jump in with their questions when they want and they'll ask. Now, honest to God, watching this is like watching
01:08:44
LeBron James play basketball. These lawyers are so mind-blowingly impressive on both sides that you would just like
01:08:52
sit there and I was like in awe. It was so I I felt like my energy was completely sapped from me at the end of
01:08:58
this process because you were just so engaged and so caught into the way that these guys are thinking and talking.
01:09:04
>> Did you take a rose sparks? Did you take a rose sparks when you were there?
01:09:06
>> No. And if you're familiar if you're familiar enough with the case or the
01:09:10
case history or the law that's being debated because again when when you get
01:09:13
to the Supreme Court, you never debate the case. What you're debating is the
01:09:17
legal interpretation of the the decisions that were made on the case. And so is this constitutional? How do
01:09:23
you interpret this particular act, this law, this federal law? What's the right
01:09:27
way to think about it? So you don't actually talk about the case. You talk about the interpretation of American
01:09:31
law, of our laws, of our constitution, of the global. >> You're saying the facts have already
01:09:38
been determined. >> That's right. >> Right. At a lower court, there's
01:09:40
questions of fact and questions of law. >> The facts have already been determined
01:09:44
by the lower court. It's just Supreme Court is ruling on questions of law. >> That's right. And so they have a full
01:09:49
briefing with the full history of the case. And remember, they only hear two cases a day. So they're one hour each
01:09:54
for each hearing. >> So you go in and they only do it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday on the last two
01:09:58
weeks. and they only hear cases from October to April. There's only a handful
01:10:02
of cases that are selected. >> Wow. So you're really on a shock clock then to make
01:10:05
>> you're on a shot clock and you only have and it's 30 minutes aside and then the
01:10:08
justices will ask question. >> So this was Monsanto and Roundup, right? So what was the law that was being
01:10:13
debated >> for yours? The regulatory body, the EPA sets the label for pesticides. Does this
01:10:20
cause cancer or not? What are the warnings? This can be damaging for birth defects, pregnancy, all the things that
01:10:25
we're all used to seeing on labels. when you buy a product, a chemical product
01:10:29
and the EPA and their regulatory authority determined that Roundup does not cause cancer. When you sell a
01:10:36
pesticide, you first have to register it with the EPA, get it approved, and then
01:10:39
the EPA gives you a label. And the label is written by the EPA. It says exactly what you're supposed to say. And in this
01:10:45
case, it said all this stuff doesn't say cancer because they determined it does
01:10:49
not cause cancer. And I'm not going to debate whether or not it causes cancer,
01:10:52
but that's the case that was made is that the EPA is the regulatory body under a federal act called FIFRA,
01:10:59
fungicide, insecttoide or denicide act. And that's where the EPA is given their
01:11:03
regulatory authority to put the label on these products. And all of the cases that have been lost have been state
01:11:11
failure to warn cases. To date, Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has paid out $10 billion in these lawsuits, and they
01:11:19
have reserved 10 billion on their balance sheet. They have 90,000 cases still outstanding in the courts. 90,000.
01:11:25
>> Wow. >> And so, this one case got kind of appealed up to the Supreme Court. Last
01:11:30
year, the White House solicitor general, and if the solicitor general steps up and asks the Supreme Court to take a
01:11:35
case, it's more likely the case gets taken. So, the White House said, "Please
01:11:38
take this case. We need to have federal preeemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set the
01:11:44
label because all of the cases that have been lost and that are being adjudicated
01:11:49
are in state courts where the state has a law like in California called a failure to warn law, which means if a
01:11:55
manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer. And so the the lawyers have
01:12:02
been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product caused cancer and didn't warn the consumer. And they've
01:12:08
been winning cases. they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that
01:12:12
this has now become a multi-dea billion dollar problem. And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't cause
01:12:18
cancer and they have federal preeemption. So the EPA has the right to determine. So that's the one argument.
01:12:24
But then when the other attorney came up, this guy was like literally like watching LeBron James. And so going in,
01:12:30
we're like, "Oh, 63 Bayer's going to win." And then the other guy comes up
01:12:33
and he was like, "Well, hey, you guys overturned the Chevron doctrine last year. You guys remember that case?
01:12:38
>> Yeah. Where basically when the Chevron doctrine got overturned, it basically
01:12:42
said that no longer >> does the federal agency get to decide it has to be a direct reading of the law.
01:12:50
>> Duh. So now, so he's saying like the states should have a right to read the
01:12:55
law themselves. They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA. And that's what
01:12:59
this will come down to. So at the end of it, we were like, "Oh my god, this could
01:13:02
be a 50/50 coin flip, 54 either way." And going into it, we were kind of like
01:13:06
trying to say, "Hey, maybe this could be 63." So honestly, the whole experience
01:13:10
was incredible. The case is interesting. >> These are very complicated matters. How
01:13:13
are these people able to make a wholesome argument in like one side gets 30 minutes, the other side gets 30
01:13:20
minutes, there's a little Q&A, and then you're done in an hour. >> There's this whole art and science and
01:13:24
Sax, you're probably familiar with this on how do you distill down a Supreme
01:13:27
Court case in the briefing dock? Like what is it you're petitioning around the
01:13:31
court? and you try and distill it down to the exact legal interpretation you want the judges to rule on, not all the
01:13:37
other [ __ ] >> And this is oral arguments. Yes. >> Oral arguments, just a discussion. And
01:13:41
then the judges jump in and all they're doing is asking the lawyer questions,
01:13:44
one lawyer at a time, the one side and then the other side. And by the way, the solicitor general came up in the middle
01:13:49
and kind of made a few comments and they asked her some questions from the White
01:13:52
House and she sat down and then the two sides kind of went back and forth and and they just it's like 30 minutes Q&A
01:13:57
each on that one specific legal question and Katanji Brown Jackson said, "But
01:14:03
what if after the EPA issued the label, they found out information that it does cause cancer? Shouldn't they update the
01:14:09
label?" And he's saying, "Well, no, they're not allowed to. They can only
01:14:11
issue the label the EPA says." And he says also and it's it's a criminal case
01:14:16
if they find out that it does cause cancer and they don't report it to the EPA and then she's saying well what if
01:14:21
the EPA doesn't act and shouldn't the states have a right to protect their
01:14:24
people? So those are the legal arguments, the discussions that are going on in all of this. And there's
01:14:29
interesting implications which is fundamentally if the states get to interpret federal law and ignore federal
01:14:35
regulatory bodies, it opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of like all the states can start to ignore federal
01:14:41
regula regulatory bodies like the EPA or the FDA or the USDA or and on and on and
01:14:46
on. So the whole case has a whole bunch of really interesting implications wound
01:14:50
up in it. when you hear these guys and they're just talking chimat about that
01:14:53
exact like interpretation of the law and that's what this comes down to. It's not
01:14:56
the actual case that matters >> and after the sachs they oral arguments and then they have like a private
01:15:02
conference where they'll write their papers and give their final judgment. Yeah.
01:15:07
>> Saxs. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think what happens is that so I guess there's some discussion that
01:15:12
happens behind closed doors and they figure out where the majority is and then the chief gets to assign who writes
01:15:18
the opinion for the majority >> in that meeting nobody is allowed in and in fact you have a double door system
01:15:24
where like if anything needs to come in and out you have to like kind of like knock on the door you're led into this
01:15:28
anti chamber then >> oh is it an airlock is an airlock >> it's effectively we I had I don't know
01:15:34
if you were there Jason but we had Ted Cruz come to play in the poker game >> uh And Ted Cruz clerked for William
01:15:40
Ranquist and if you want to have an incredible dinner, ask him about the Supreme Court and Bill Ranquist. He's a
01:15:48
real student of the Supreme Court and it just makes the Supreme Court free to your point sound like the most
01:15:53
incredible body that's ever been created anywhere. By the way, more than the
01:15:59
White House, more than the Capital Building, more than any of these other big agencies, this place has it's almost
01:16:06
like being in England, it has these kind of ways that people operate. The the the
01:16:10
security is so different. They kind of stand there in the court and they all exchange places every 20 minutes. It's
01:16:16
very coordinated. They're dressed very differently than any other >> courtroom listening.
01:16:20
>> Maybe like 150, I would say. How do you take it? Are they on >> I actually think everyone is a guest of
01:16:26
a clerk or someone that works at the court. I don't think that it's like very
01:16:29
publicly available to get in there. >> You can't line up. There's no lineup.
01:16:32
>> There's I don't know if there's a lineup. Um this was a connection through
01:16:36
we got in through the chief justice. Um he gave us the pass, but I think it was like very um
01:16:42
>> I think at the Elon versus Open AI case there's you can line up and then the
01:16:47
judge gave like 30 tickets to the press court. No, no. Yeah, but I think there's
01:16:52
a lineup for the Supreme Court as well. There's some public access that they're
01:16:55
>> It did not look like anyone from the public was in this court. Everyone,
01:16:59
everyone is dressed respectfully. I mean, this court has an incredible amount of like,
01:17:04
>> you know, cool experience. >> I would I would just say uh enjoy it
01:17:09
while you can. I mean, I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in the United
01:17:14
States. And% >> you know at some point we're going to have like 13 or 21 or some crazy number
01:17:20
of justices up there and get jersey after justices there and so enjoy it while it's still
01:17:29
>> in the current in the current form it's in. >> Can you imagine showing up with jerseys
01:17:34
with the justices names on them and like having sections and like somebody selling cracker jacks
01:17:40
>> theocracy version of the Supreme Court >> version. Exactly. >> The popularity of the court really
01:17:47
depends on whether it's issuing decisions that people agree with. That's
01:17:52
what it comes down to. If like if you ask people whether they like the Supreme Court or not, it really just depends on
01:17:58
whether they agree with the decisions are recency as opposed to >> the process of the decisions and how
01:18:04
well argued it is and all these things that you're pointing to. And actually
01:18:08
the the court I mean I just checked the numbers. The court is relatively popular
01:18:12
right now. I think that it got as low as 35% in the 2024 Gallup survey, but I think it's back up to, you know, like 44
01:18:23
to 50% favorability, which for something that's involved in politics is relatively high, right? Like you look at
01:18:30
Congress or >> any particular politician, they're going to be lower than that typically. I just
01:18:35
felt so assured of like the institution when I visited and saw these guys interact and behave and how they behave
01:18:43
the process. It was like >> man this what an amazing country. Yeah. >> Well, the reason I say what I say is
01:18:49
there was an interview with James Carville recently. Did you guys see this? He saidaw he said look when we get
01:18:54
power we're packing the court. >> So we're not even going to we're not
01:18:57
going to worry about it. >> And we're going to get to 13, right? He said we're going to make
01:19:01
>> I think Yeah. They're going to go from 9 to 13 and then they're going to create
01:19:04
some new states and all the rest of it. So that'll be that. >> Uh >> enjoy enjoy while it last. Enjoy.
01:19:10
>> Enjoy while it lasts. >> Uh by the way, >> end on a high note.
01:19:13
>> Wait. Yeah. It's the end of the empire. That'll be that. >> By the way, there is uh a Supreme Court
01:19:19
on I was correct. There is an online ticketing lottery. So we can all sign up and you can get a fourack of tickets. I
01:19:26
think they should make this I we should talk to Howard Lutnik. Maybe he can make
01:19:30
this an auction. We get a revenue stream from the US. We could sell like 10 of the tickets as courtside seats for 20
01:19:35
grand. >> Jason, you're exactly what they're trying to protect against.
01:19:38
>> Exactly. Like, how can we how do we monetize the Supreme Court? >> All right, everybody. That's it. That's
01:19:44
the world's greatest podcast for you for Chimoth Poly Hatia, David Freeberg, and
01:19:48
David Saxs. I am the world's greatest moderator. We'll see you chief justice.
01:19:54
>> I'm like the chief justice of the allin podcast. We'll let your winners ride.
01:20:01
>> Rainman David and it said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with
01:20:09
it. >> Love you queen of winners. >> Besties are gone. >> That is my dog taking a driveway.
01:20:26
>> Oh man. My habitasher will meet. >> We should all just get a room and just
01:20:30
have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual
01:20:34
tension that you just need to release somehow. >> Your feet. We need to get Mercury's already.
01:20:52
I'm going all in.