SPEAKER_00: All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world, the All-In Podcast. After a triumphant week last week, we had an amazing episode. Thanks to Larry Summers and Ezra Klein for joining us for the great tariff debate. Number four episode in the world last week. And, man, we got a banger ready for you today. Before I get to that, a couple of quick plugs.

SPEAKER_01: Did you call the DNC to clean up the roadkill, Jason?

SPEAKER_05: I'm an independent, folks. I know these guys keep trying to pin me as a Democrat. I'm an independent, critical thinker for life. But I do think Ezra has got a little PTSD. I haven't heard from Ezra.

SPEAKER_06: Does the DNC have a roadkill cleanup crew?

SPEAKER_05: You know, it's amazing. You have an episode like that where I thought we made great progress on dealing with those issues and came to some consensus at the end. And then every single person universally, if they're on the right, oh, my God, Saxon, Chamath destroyed them. If they're on the left, the left's position was, oh, my God, Saxon, Chamath finally got destroyed. Anyway, you decide for yourself. We're just here to talk about the most important news stories. And all in some.

SPEAKER_10: I think Chamath is right. I think they sent the same crew that cleans up the armadillos on the road.

SPEAKER_13: Okay. The armadillos. All righty. Here we go. September 7th to 9th in Los Angeles.

SPEAKER_14: There are a couple armadillos left lying on the side of the road. All right.

SPEAKER_15: Okay. All in Summit is going into its fourth year.

SPEAKER_05: Yada, yada. September 7th to 9th. Apply. All in. Dot com slash Summit. Pronouns everywhere.

SPEAKER_17: Pronouns everywhere on the highway, Jason. Pronouns are everywhere. Can I just get through this? People just trying to clean up the pronouns.

SPEAKER_18: The shovels weren't big enough for all the pronouns.

SPEAKER_20: Freiberg was on Jeopardy again, Celebrity Jeopardy, and I don't want to ruin it for you, but he had an amazing comeback victory, but really excited to have on the program today

SPEAKER_00: one of your favorites. He was on the show pre-election. One of my favorites. Robert F. Kennedy is with us again. RFK.

SPEAKER_05: How are you doing?

SPEAKER_24: I love the glasses. You're going to make America healthy again, and welcome to the program, RFK Jr.

SPEAKER_26: We found out that autism is caused mainly by this show, and we're going to have to take

SPEAKER_27: action. We've started to look at the different causes, but we're thinking it is the debate between Ezra Klein and Larry Summers that is the real villain here.

SPEAKER_31: David Sackler.

SPEAKER_40: Tremendous. Everybody knows RFK is going to do a great job.

SPEAKER_43: He's a little bit weird, but wife is a smoke show. I mean, an incredible wife, RFK Jr. Incredible.

SPEAKER_44: Not as good. Not as good. Okay. Well, I'm trying to land it.

SPEAKER_45: Yeah. What am I supposed to do? I'm up against a professional.

SPEAKER_48: You know, can you just moderate so that Tim can be the comedian? Okay, here we go. Don't talk over me, okay?

SPEAKER_49: You just sit down, Jamal. Can you do what you did last week? Here we go. Can you do what you did last week?

SPEAKER_50: What's that, moderate four narcissists who all want to add one more thing?

SPEAKER_54: Yeah, let the experts talk. Yes, of course. You kind of hang back.

SPEAKER_55: Here comes Zach. Why can't I talk? Why can't I talk? Can you please pass the ball?

SPEAKER_57: Just pass the ball. Here we go. Just pass the ball and get out of the way.

SPEAKER_60: Let's welcome our guest, Tim Dillon. Let the shooters shoot. He's an incredibly funny comedian. He has a new special, I'm Your Mother on Netflix.

SPEAKER_05: He's the host of the award-winning, now in its 10th year, Emmy-winning, award-winning. He's got the Emmy. He's got the Tony. He's still got to get the Grammy and the Oscar. The one, the only, Tim Dillon of the Tim Dillon Show podcast.

SPEAKER_61: Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. I feel like I'm having a Zoom meeting with Doge to prove what I've done in the last week.

SPEAKER_63: This is what, by the way, this is the last thing someone at the EPA sees. It's just these four guys. They're just staring at a guy like Chamath going, well, we tested some soil. I think we got those numbers back. That's what it feels like here. I feel like I'm on trial just trying to justify my stupid job.

SPEAKER_05: Would you like eight months severance or would you like to be fired today? Which would you prefer to?

SPEAKER_47: You have both options on the table. It would have been very funny if we actually were just, if, as soon as Tim said that, we had Steve Davis pop on.

SPEAKER_73: Yeah.

SPEAKER_20: Well, interestingly, I, you know, I don't want to speak out of school or embarrass our guests, but Tim was supposed to join us in February. Yes.

SPEAKER_23: And like the star he is, as I mentioned, he's, he's got the Emmy, he's got the Tony, still working on the Oscar and the Grammy. I mean, he was supposed to be with us and he canceled last minute.

SPEAKER_60: And then we found out why. Yeah. He ditched us to spend the day with Steve Bannon. And going to Steve Bannon podcast, here they are. That's true. What is this?

SPEAKER_79: Look at that. That's Steve Bannon and Timmy.

SPEAKER_83: I took a 23andMe and they didn't tell me my ethnicity.

SPEAKER_84: But the only thing that came back was they said that Steve Bannon was my father. Yes. And here they are on the cyclone in Brooklyn. Beautiful. There you go.

SPEAKER_05: They went out to Little Italy.

SPEAKER_88: Little Italy here. By the way, they've done a pretty decent job.

SPEAKER_92: Wrapping up with a little hookah. Or, I mean, maybe a little bit more in there. I don't know. I mean, do you think Bannon is 420 friendly? You tell us, Timmy.

SPEAKER_83: I think anything. I mean, Bannon would tell you if we could start farming marijuana in America and the American working class could share in the profits, I think he'd be 420 friendly. He would be 420 friendly.

SPEAKER_97: No Taiwanese marijuana, though. Nothing. You know, it's got to be American.

SPEAKER_01: Can I give a quick shout out, which is 10 months ago, Tim Dillon, one on the Tucker Carlson show. I think the title is called Disney Boomers and the Creepy Corporations that Pretend to Love You. Really one of the best pieces of content I watched all of last year. Nick, you should put the link in the show notes. Thank you. It's incredible. Thank you. The whole thing, end to end, two hours while spent, I would encourage everybody to watch it. It's timeless content, actually.

SPEAKER_83: Real good cultural observation at the moment.

SPEAKER_107: It's really good.

SPEAKER_98: Two white guys talking in a garage in Maine. Seems. He has a certain way. You know, I went to and did it there.

SPEAKER_01: And he has a way of just kind of like slipping you into this state of comfort. All of a sudden, I just started talking about all the money I've lost. He's great. He's great at it.

SPEAKER_83: He roofied you. Where is this going from? Who's changed me? He's great at it. It's like Megyn Kelly's great at it, too. I just did her thing.

SPEAKER_113: And, you know, she does it at her house. And I just show up and she's sitting behind the desk and she goes, hi.

SPEAKER_115: And you sit down and you're and then she goes, so your mother's a schizophrenic. Like immediately you start crying to Megyn Kelly. They're just good. They know what they're doing.

SPEAKER_117: They know what they're doing.

SPEAKER_00: Let's get to the docket. H20's ban. The U.S. and China trade war has been escalating. On Monday, the White House informed NVIDIA that they were putting an indefinite export restriction on NVIDIA's H20 chips to China. And so in this filing, NVIDIA said it expects a $5.5 billion hit to the quarterly earnings. Stock dropped 6%. For those of you who don't know, H20 is essentially the weaker version of the H100. It was designed, actually, to comply with these export restrictions on AI chips and allow

SPEAKER_24: them, NVIDIA, to sell something into China. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang was visiting China today. He told Chinese state media, quote, the China market is very important to us. Yada, yada. Saks, you're here.

SPEAKER_20: I think you got some official information for us on this. What's the story here? Wasn't this supposed to be the chip that was made for China?

SPEAKER_10: In a sense. I mean, there is a long history to this. Okay. So first of all, just to be clear, we're not talking about tariffs. We're talking about export controls. And the export controls are designed to prevent certain sensitive technologies, technologies that could have a dual use, potential military as well as consumer application from going to China.

David Sacks: And this goes all the way back to 2019. The first Trump administration placed a ban on extreme ultraviolet lithography equipment going to China. This is the key technology in the printing of transistors on the silicon wafer in the semiconductor manufacturing process. And there's only one company in the world that makes these machines. They cost like $200 million. It's called ASML. It's a company in the Netherlands. In any event, the first Trump administration prevented these machines from going to China, which I think in hindsight was a really far-sighted decision. Because if it weren't for that, China might today be dominating global manufacturing of semiconductors. And their inability to get that sort of lithography equipment, I think, definitely put a dent in their plans. Subsequent to that, in 2022, the Biden administration started adding leading-edge chips to the export control list, like you said, the H100. NVIDIA then designed a new chip that was basically a version of the H100, but they reduced the amount of flops or computational power just below the thresholds. They continue selling to China. That was called the H800. The Biden administration then added the H800 to the export control list in 2023. So NVIDIA developed the H20, which, again, is kind of like a NERF version of the H100. This has less computational power. I think the issue is that flops isn't the only criteria by which you can measure the power of a chip. There's also now memory bandwidth. And in the new paradigm of reinforcement learning and test-time compute, memory bandwidth actually matters more than the amount of flops. And if you look at the memory bandwidth on the H20, it actually has 20% more memory bandwidth than the H100. So I think there is a view that this chip is just, frankly, too good. And the response I'd have to people who don't think we should be restricting this is, are you against export controls in general, or you just think that we're drawing the line in the wrong place here? Because, you know, I've heard folks like our friends like Bill Gurley and so forth say that

SPEAKER_128: Yeah, it's about to pull.

David Sacks: That we're making a mistake. But I think the question for those people is, would you sell them everything? I mean, if China wanted to buy the latest NVIDIA chip, the GB200, would you sell that to them? Would you sell them a million of those? Would you sell them five million if they're willing to pay a premium? It seems to me that at some point you have to say that some technologies are just too sensitive to be sold to China. And so then the question is, are you drawing the line in the right place?

SPEAKER_20: Let me bring Freeberg in on that. Freeberg, friends of the pod like Gavin Baker said these tariffs and these type of bands are going to essentially guarantee that America will lose AI because, and Gurley as well has this position, that we're now going to make China force them to make their own chips. Now, you know, necessity will be the mother invention and it's going to escalate. And we'd be better of just selling them these instead of the latest ones. What's your take on that? That, you know, this will be the inspiration for them to build their own NVIDIA.

SPEAKER_135: It's an important question. Last year, China announced and began a $37 billion investment in developing their own

SPEAKER_137: three nanometer chimp technology. So, you know, the EUV lithography systems that Sachs is referencing require these wavelengths of light at about 13 and a half nanometer, which is, you know, the previous technology was like 200 plus nanometers. So it's very, very small wavelengths of light that you have to be able to manipulate very, in a very kind of discrete way to print circuits that are just three nanometer scale. And so it turns out that last year, China made a claim that this investment they had made was starting to pay off and they had developed their own EUV system. And their big semiconductor company is called the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC in China, they launched a chip, a seven nanometer chip with Huawei in their Mate 60 Pro, which is sort of like their iPhone competitor in China. And so they're proclaiming that they've already got this EUV technology from what I understand, and Sachs would know better than I, it sounds like there was a lot of reverse engineering and workaround of existing technology in order to deliver that system. But they may now already be investing in and developing their own system. So, JCal, I think they're doing it either way. I think that they're going to invest and build their own EUV and chip manufacturing capacity either way. And the question is, does this slow them down or limit their ability on the application or the AI layer to kind of be held back for some period of time?

SPEAKER_20: Obviously accelerates it because they have no choice but to, accelerates their commitment to it. So, Tim, you've been talking about these EUV technologies in the 200 nanometer, one specific

SPEAKER_141: It's my entire special. It's my entire special.

SPEAKER_143: It's a little crazy that you'd rip me off like this. My entire special is about the lithograph. Yeah. And that's the hour that I do. You know, I'm of the mind if you give a man a chip, he makes one semiconductor or a few. But if you teach a man to make a chip, he makes multiple semiconductors and invades Taiwan. So, that's where I am with this. You know, it's...

SPEAKER_97: I think we should keep them dependent. Keep selling it to them. Yes. Keep selling it to them. Treat it like Perkisac.

SPEAKER_60: You understand how this works. Yes. If somebody becomes addicted to the good stuff, then they come back. You don't want to give them too much. And you hide a little...

SPEAKER_149: You backdoor the technology with a little surveillance and stuff. So, have some fun. Have some fun.

SPEAKER_151: You know, that's been done before. Sure. Backdoors all the time.

SPEAKER_153: Backdoors the technology, a little surveillance capability. You slip it in there. Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: Chamath, what's your thoughts coming around the horn here?

SPEAKER_20: You were sort of talking about, I think, publicly, and obviously, you've got... And so, you're in the space with chips. Does this net-net, end of the day, slow them down?

SPEAKER_146: Or slow them down short-term, speed them up long-term?

SPEAKER_01: I think that the technology that they need is extremely non-trivial. And I do think that it actually slows them down quite a bit if they don't have access to it. Can I just take a step back and up-level this? Sure. I think it was in 2017, the State Council of China published this plan, and they were incredibly transparent and honest. They said, this plan is for China to become a global leader in AI by 2030. Okay. And it said, so this is in 2017. And they said, by 2020, we need to have made iconic advances. By 2025, we should be a major engine of the industry. And by 2030, they should occupy the commanding heights, they said, in AI tech. Okay. So why is that important? To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that NVIDIA is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Oh. David mentioned this. When the U.S. banned the sale of the top-end GPUs, the A100 and the H100, they quickly introduced the A800 and H800. What does that mean? Well, all it was, was just a chip that was basically the same, it slightly reduced the data transfer speed, so that it went under the export control threshold, but it was still really usable. Then late last year, they introduced this thing called this H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with U.S. rules at the time, which again, gives these guys substantial performance. Okay, so what do you have? You have a 2017 plan that they've been executing against, which is to say, we want to dominate this space. And you have an American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China.

SPEAKER_01: So then you would say, well, maybe there's not that much going into China. Nick, can you just throw up the chart that I sent you about NVIDIA's revenue composition? So let's just call a spade a spade, guys. I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries.

Chamath Palihapitiya: And I think when you peel back this onion, I think what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these NVIDIA GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China. And I think that is the big problem because it doesn't mean that it was just these chips that David and his colleagues put on an export control list. It was every kind of chip, and now it explains every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible, DeepSeq shows up with something better? At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead. And I suspect it's because these chips are being used in very sophisticated ways behind the scenes, and I think that's the issue that we need to address.

SPEAKER_163: Just to be clear, the insight you have here, the prediction is people are selling these to Taiwan, they're selling them in Singapore, Hong Kong, and there's a group that are zipping them over to China mainland or letting them use them.

SPEAKER_06: I don't know if you saw, but I believe there was a report that there was a couple of Singaporeans that were arrested for actually trying to bring the chips into China.

Chamath Palihapitiya: I don't think it's necessarily that. I think what happens is you have some entity that springs up, you know, Acme Corporation, AcmeCorp.com. They show up in Bhutan or Cambodia or Vietnam or Singapore, and they provide a PO, a purchase order to NVIDIA, $300, $500, $800 million. What do you think NVIDIA is going to do? They're going to think, well, this is a legitimate Singaporean entity. I'm going to sell them the chips, whatever they want. It checks all the boxes, and they look away. And what we need to now figure out is what happens once those chips get delivered. It is the only explanation for this. You don't have this requirement for this number of GPUs for those end markets. There is only one end market.

SPEAKER_48: I will say, Tom, that's an explosive allegation. Sachs, what do you think of this theory more broadly?

SPEAKER_10: I think it is a fact that there have been both legal and illegal attempts to evade the U.S. export controls. That is true. And there's a number of companies that have done it.

David Sacks: For example, last year, there was a case where TSMC was discovered to have produced something like 3 million chips that went into the Huawei Ascend 910C chips. I think there's like 3 million dyes or something that went into the Huawei Ascend chips. And I think they're being fined for that. And again, this is all public information. Now, they claim that they thought it was for a company called, I think, Softco. It's basically a Bitcoin, like, ASICs company. But nonetheless, this did happen. So there have been attempts to set up shell companies to circumvent the export controls. And it is a very big problem.

SPEAKER_20: Tim, what do you think more broadly about what Trump is doing with this trade war in China? Any takes on China, Taiwan, and just how Americans should look at, hey, maybe we have to buy some more high-quality products. Maybe we don't get things on Timu as cheap with these, you know, $850 exemptions, et cetera.

SPEAKER_113: I think roughly Trump's instincts are correct. I think the way that the tariffs rolled out seem to be incredibly chaotic. I think that's a huge problem with a lot of what the Trump administration does. They seem to have the correct instincts, but they have, like, a very sloppy rollout, right? Like, everything's a hard launch. Everything's incredibly, I don't know that things are messaged the right way.

SPEAKER_143: The whole Doge thing is a little bit of a fiasco because the messaging seemed off. Like, nobody was out really talking about what they were doing and why they were doing it. You know, I don't know how well this works, you know? I mean, you have a very integrated global economy. You guys know more about that than I do. Are you able to unwind that? And if you do, you have to unwind it in certain areas.

SPEAKER_113: And certain areas you're going to have to allow to probably remain relatively stable and consistent, right? I mean, if you listen to Ray Dalio, he talks about, like, a disaster coming with monetary policy, right? The whole unwinding of these economic and political structures kind of happening at once.

SPEAKER_179: I don't know. I think Americans do overconsume a lot of crap. I think cheap goods aren't necessarily the highest organizing principle of life. I think people have been sold the idea that cheap goods are more important than having a stable functioning job and family. I think the gig economy has been sold to Americans as a way to offer them freedom and really in chaos at the expense of the stability that used to come with, you know, a job with benefits that you stayed in for, you know.

SPEAKER_113: But the other component to that is, you know, we have to make sure that, like, you know, we don't have skyrocketing prices that completely decimate people either. So I think you need to find a balance. I want to see my friends work in factories. I want them to get hurt. I want to release the safety standards.

SPEAKER_143: I want child labor. Children are terrorists, many of them. They start fights in malls. They have flash mobs. They run around Chicago trying to kill people that are just trying to have shellfish showers on the river. So, yes, children should work. My friends should work in a plastics factory. DoorDash is a horrible job. You lose a finger at a factory. It's a story. Delivering burritos is a hell. Driving Uber. All these horrible, degrading things we make people do. Yes. And then tell them it's great.

SPEAKER_179: And then we look, you know, you should destigmatize being an electrician, a plumber, a contractor. All these things that when I was told, you know, when I was growing up, they'd point to a guy doing construction and go, you're going to do that if you don't do your homework. And then the people that did their homework are all, you know, bankrupt. And that construction guy, you know, is killing it, is doing pretty well. And so what? He went to January 6th. He went there peacefully.

SPEAKER_143: But the whole thing is like, I think you need to figure out, you know, how to kind of reintroduce the idea that this gig economy where people serve from one unfulfilling nightmare to the next should be rethought.

SPEAKER_162: Yes, better to be in a factory, losing a finger, in the field, building something good.

SPEAKER_63: In David's estimation, when you're talking about these companies that are set up to get these chips that evade export controls, you think, is that the Chinese government doing that?

SPEAKER_179: Is that an intelligence agency doing that? Who would be setting those companies up? Is it people that are interested purely in profit and that are then selling those chips?

SPEAKER_186: That's super interesting.

SPEAKER_10: Well, I think you have to ask the question, qui bono. I mean, who benefits? Right. I think clearly the shell companies, the front companies are set up by either the Chinese government or entities in China to evade the export controls because ultimately they want the chips. However, I think there is also a problem that Lenin described as the capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang themselves.

David Sacks: And I do think there are a lot of Western companies that will look the other way or turn a blind eye and just haven't been enforcing the rules as religiously as they should because it's profitable not to. And this is where I do think that the U.S. government has to be pretty tough. I mean, if we're going to have export controls in the first place, I know there's some people who don't think we should have them, but I do. I mean, I don't think we should let China have access to our leading edge AI technology. We have to make sure that the export controls are effective. And that means there has to be some cracking down in order to make that happen. Part of the crackdown is we have to define the boundary lines in a more effective way with fewer loopholes so that companies can't legally take advantage of those loopholes. But also, we're going to need more monitoring, more inspection, and more enforcement. And this is one of the few areas of the government that I actually think needs more resources. I think that Elon and Doge have identified many areas of the government that are massively overstaffed. But this is one area, there's an agency inside the Department of Commerce called BIS that actually has to do all of this monitoring and inspections and enforcement. And I actually think they're understaffed relative to the importance of this particular task.

SPEAKER_188: Let's have a thought starter for a second, guys.

SPEAKER_01: Do you guys think that if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live? Is there a cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere that's AI-powered? I think the answer is no. So we already know what the answer is. The question is, this is a case where you have plausible deniability, right? I sell something to a Singaporean registered company, plausible deniability. What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question. But what is the real expectation? Let's flip it on its head. Last week, China, in retaliation for tariffs, constrained the supply of rare earths outside of China, right? Leaving China. You had certain factory lines that just had to stop on a dime, right? So they're clearly in a position to understand their supply chain, who benefits or who doesn't benefit and can be hurt by constraining supply. And they're able to affect that. At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it. Whether they do it or not should be up to powers that be that are bigger than the four of us or the five of us. But that's my point, which is that it is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations. That may be okay. And that's a decision that the United States government should make. But it's something that should be disclosed to them somehow. And I think if you look at the composition of revenue for NVIDIA, it is inconceivable that there's a bunch of Asian AI apps that are just crushing it so hard.

SPEAKER_189: No, no.

SPEAKER_141: I mean, it's so obvious what's happening there. I think we, yeah, we don't need to guess.

SPEAKER_192: Taiwan and Vietnam do not have the need for that many domestically. They're obviously flipping them to someone, right? It's a given some percentage of those are being resold. Hey, Freeberg, you were on Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_193: Freeberg went to the next round.

SPEAKER_195: Wait, this is the outro to that? I wanted to get Tim in on the Jeopardy thing.

SPEAKER_196: You should have done like a more broadly accessible topic like Harvard. No, the chips are great.

SPEAKER_63: I like the chips. You like that, Tim? I learned something. The plausible deniability is interesting. It's like the banks that dealt with Jeffrey Epstein.

SPEAKER_83: And I know it's a sore topic because he was the fifth man on this show and RIP and we miss him.

SPEAKER_199: But he would have been phenomenal on the show. Let's just say he would have been good on the show.

SPEAKER_201: Yeah. And he would have been good on the show. But that was a very interesting topic. I've never been on a podcast where a topic's been handled. And I'm going to go on Joe Rogan tomorrow and just say everything Chamath just said. I'm going to go. I'm going to. What did he say? Can we level this up or something? Can we high level this? Yeah, we're leveling up. What did he say? Can we up level it? Yes, you have that.

SPEAKER_149: I say that at Chili's. I go, can we up level this for a minute?

SPEAKER_212: Yeah, it's $1.99 extra if you want the extra jalapenos, Tim.

SPEAKER_149: So what's going on? Harvard, are we selling that to China? I'm for that. Yes.

SPEAKER_214: Well, there's been a Donnybrook, if you will, Tim.

SPEAKER_217: Yeah. Between Trump and Harvard.

SPEAKER_216: That's just smart to buy Harvard. They know it's a scam. That's a good point.

SPEAKER_15: Here we go. I'm just smoking like a true Stanford guy.

SPEAKER_00: On March 31st, three federal agencies announced they were reviewing $9 billion in multi-year federal grants and $256 million in contracts that went to Harvard. Three agencies, Education, Health, and the GSA. This past Friday, April 11th, the group sent a letter to Harvard's president and the head of Harvard Corporation, laid out a series of changes. The White House is demanding merit-based hiring and admissions, staff, admissions students, all that good stuff. Cancel all your DEI programs. No more die. Reform international admissions.

SPEAKER_20: No more admitting students that are, quote, hostile to American values. Increase the different viewpoints on diversity across all departments and abolish admission

SPEAKER_24: practices that served as an ideological litmus test.

SPEAKER_20: Harvard's president, Alan Garber, said he would not comply. Later that day, the White House responded by freezing $2.2 billion in grants, $60 million in contracts.

SPEAKER_00: They now want to take away, the White House, the tax-exempt status of Harvard, which would be absolutely insane. It's happened, actually, once before in 1970s. Bob Jones University in South Carolina was doing outwardly racist stuff.

SPEAKER_24: And the IRS, according to the CNN, is looking into this. Your thoughts, Shimon?

SPEAKER_01: Well, it's more than the IRS is looking into it. They're thinking of revoking their tax-exempt status. Yeah. How about I tee this up slightly differently? Tim, you brought up something that I think is really important, which is, what is the American dream for all these people that are cascading between half jobs and half measures? That's right. That's a really important question. And right now, if you look at the top of the educational hierarchy, Harvard, what have we seen over the last few years? They are at the absolute bottom of the rankings with respect to free speech. They have lost all of these cases all the way up to the Supreme Court about how they do admissions. Harvard doesn't just have a front door. It's got a bunch of side doors, got a bunch of back doors, and they discriminate. And what is the opposite of discrimination? It's meritocracy. And I think with 20-plus years of discrimination, what Harvard did was made it fashionable for other schools to discriminate. And if you compound that for 20 years, it doesn't just touch the universities. It starts to touch the high schools and the middle schools, where we live at the beginning of COVID.

Chamath Palihapitiya: We had some morons at the Board of Education decide to take away AP calculus and AP math because it made people feel bad. It's absolutely ridiculous. And then we pound these kids with ADHD pills. And what happens is what you described, Tim. So what is the point of fixing Harvard? It's really important because the opposite of what they do, what they do is discriminate, is a meritocracy. And we need to make that fashionable again. And the biggest reason goes back to, again, I'll just go back to the chip conversation. The Chinese are so well organized. If you look at the Chinese and the Indians together, those are 2.5 billion people swimming in a meritocratic soup from the day they're born. That's the only way they climb out. And it's eat or be eaten. And then when they graduate from an education system that is purely meritocratic, you know what they do? They enter a workforce that's also meritocratic. So it's compounded into their psyche that you just have to perform. Whereas what we do is we do all of these fake things that make people feel really bad about themselves. They look at other people that think that shouldn't deserve to be in places get places. And so we have to turn that tide. And so whatever it takes, the most severe and extreme measures must be undertaken to

SPEAKER_226: fix this. That's my point of view.

SPEAKER_227: Tim, your thoughts on Trump wanting to take away the non-profit?

SPEAKER_113: I went to one of these encampments during the protests. I wanted to see it for myself to see what was going on. I do. I did like there was a lot of you'd see a non-binary Asian dressed up like a Hamas. And I think that's fun. I think it's college.

SPEAKER_143: So I think that people are going to express views that are often, you know, probably anti-American. I don't think we can. And you can't shield yourself from that.

SPEAKER_113: I don't like deporting people that are, you know, critical of Israel, for example, unless

SPEAKER_179: they've committed crimes and you can provide, they're providing material support, you know, if you can prove they're providing.

SPEAKER_63: Due process. Due process. Well, you need to provide, you know, if they're providing material support to Hamas or something

SPEAKER_179: like that, that's a different story. But if they're here on a legal resident visa, they should be allowed the space to, you know, express themselves as any other American citizen would. Now, that being said, it is impossible to look at higher education in America right now and not be embarrassed. Truly, truly. The word is embarrassment. These should be the shining example of, as Chamath was saying, institutions that prepare people for the real world. But what they really are, they've all been captured in this quasi-religious cult of insanity, where people are elevating different types of characteristics outside of intelligence and merit as the most important things to be considered for admission, you know, to be given academic achievements and things like this. It's kind of embarrassing. And I think if these institutions are going to follow that path, they're going to have to live and die on their own. They're not going to be able to be taxpayer subsidized and funded. They have massive endowments from multi-billionaires whose families all go. But like Chamath said, they do engage in discrimination. And frankly, you know, again, I'm not for drawing ideological lines and I'm a big free speech guy. But I do think that you don't find much ideological diversity on any of those campuses, certainly not in the faculties at all. And it doesn't prepare anybody for a world. And all the politics are very aesthetic, meaning all these people are out there, you know, showing off, exhibiting their virtue. But at the end of the day, they're still getting a very cushy internship and a nice job. And, you know, they're going to summer in Martha's Vineyard. You know, for example, I was lucky enough to go to the Kennedy compound this summer. I went sailing with their family and they're really great kids. A lot of the kids there were from-

SPEAKER_233: On the Vineyard or The Rock? Where were they?

SPEAKER_179: No, they're on, you know, Hyannis, whatever, the famous thing. And I went there and a lot of their young kids, RFK's kids are young. They went to Harvard. And a lot of these Harvard kids are all good kids. But, you know, some of them are very interesting, right? Because they said to me, they said, you own a house in the Hamptons. I said, yeah. They go, do you ever go out there in the winter? I go, yeah, sometimes I do. It's quiet, nice. You can write. You can work on stuff. They go, yeah, well, you know, they go, it's kind of depressing to come to the Cape in the winter because all these people here are on drugs. And it's like, yeah, because you ship their jobs away.

SPEAKER_143: So it was just stunning. They're very smart kids, but you have these chasms where, you know, where you would think it would be completely obvious to people at this, you know, amazing academic institution

SPEAKER_179: that, yeah, of course, the people are on drugs. They're embracing pathological behavior. They don't have a future. But these schools have become these really insular bubbles where these people have these really well-meaning aesthetic politics, which says, we don't care about your economic circumstances, here's a trans Batman. And I don't think that that seems to be the ethos of higher education in America right now. And it's very hypocritical. And I think it's why the Democratic Party no longer connects because they're too closely

SPEAKER_63: associated with like that type of, you know, that type of vibe.

SPEAKER_84: Identity politics.

SPEAKER_20: Yeah. Freeberg, what's your thought? Should the IRS revoke or threaten to revoke here their nonprofit status? Is that a fair technique here because they won't acquiesce and do exactly as instructed? And what do you think is going to happen here? Does this possibly result in them losing their IRS status?

SPEAKER_137: Harvard's endowment is $53.2 billion. Huge. I assume they make 7% return. You know, they're making 4 billion a year in income generated from those investments in that endowment. I think there's a couple of two really important questions. One is, should the role of the federal government be to give out money equally to institutions? Or should the role be to give money to the institutions that are going to provide the highest ROI for America? Or is the goal to redistribute wealth? And is that the point of federal spending and federal expenditures? So, you know, you could kind of think about Harvard, MIT, and a few other institutions that have truly great research institutions embedded within them as being the best ROI for America from a grant perspective when you're giving out research grants. That's the best place because it, just like any other great technology company, it accumulates capital because it accumulates talent. And that has a network effect. And now you've got a few institutions that have a monopoly on high quality talent. And as a result, it's the best ROI for America. Is that what the federal government is investing in? Or should the federal government be trying to support universities all over the place that are more in need? And particularly a university that has $53 billion of capital, do they really need the federal funds? So then the next question, I think, is like, what is the limit on the government's ability to influence whether or not an institution gets their capital? Is it statutory? Is it mandated by law? Or does it become politically motivated, socially motivated, et cetera? Because in other parts of how we're seeing decisions being made, we're saying chevron doctrine was thrown out. And when chevron doctrine gets thrown out, we can't rely on the regulatory scrutiny of the administrators of the capital. We have to rely on the law. And is there a law that they're relying on? And I think that's the key question is to have the administration point to the laws that they believe are being violated to kind of make, I would say, a strongly defensible argument about why they would withhold the capital to make sure that they're compliant with the law and whatnot and have it not be kind of, you know, just we would prefer to see you do things differently because we think it's socially better. So I think those are kind of the two key points. Whether or not these institutions deserve nonprofit status, I don't know why an institution that has $53 billion of capital and is making probably $4 or $5 billion a year shouldn't pay taxes on that income. That income is being used to, in a variety of ways to build nice buildings and there's IP that's held by these institutions that IP is used to start startups, they get equity in the startups, they have income streams on their IP. I mean, they really do operate like technology development centers. So, you know, what is the original kind of reason for saying that they should be tax exempt? The majority of the capital is not being used to educate students. The majority of the capital is being used to reinvest, to make new capital.

SPEAKER_244: Well, Sachs, your position on Harvard losing its tax-exempt status potentially because they

SPEAKER_20: will not stop their DEI programs or they want to, I guess, better stated would be that they want to make their own decisions about this and not have the federal government make those

SPEAKER_247: decisions.

SPEAKER_122: Let's get to the nitty-gritty of the legal issue here. In 1983, there was a case called Bob Jones University versus the IRS in which the IRS

David Sacks: challenged the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because Bob Jones had this bizarre and reprehensible policy banning interracial dating on campus and interracial marriage based on a strange interpretation of scripture. At least that's what they said it was. In any event, Bob Jones lost that case and they lost their tax-exempt status. As far as I know, they kept the policy and they continued to operate as a private university. But the Supreme Court found that if you enshrine a racially discriminatory policy in violation of the civil rights laws, then you cannot get tax-exempt status. So that was the precedent. Fast forward to 2023, we have the case Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. This is the Supreme Court case a few years ago that said that affirmative action policies that use race as a factor in admissions are a violation of the 14th Amendment's protection against racial discrimination. So Harvard lost that case. They were found to be racially discriminating in admissions. Now, what Harvard did in the wake of that is that they claimed that they removed access information about an applicant's race from the admissions process so that the admissions readers don't know what race a student is. This is their claim. But at the same time that they did that, they updated their application, replacing the long form essay that all of us filled out decades ago when we went to school with five shorter questions asking how applicants will contribute to a diverse student body. It's suspiciously similar to these DEI statements where prospective professors who are applying for jobs at these universities get asked, you know, how will you contribute to diversity on campus, things like this. And it's used as a way to discriminate against conservatives or people who just think that race or diversity should not be a factor in teaching on campus. Anyone who answers that question, I believe in judging people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin, they're going to get weeded out, right? I mean, or someone who says, well, I'm going to contribute to diversity on campus by contributing intellectual diversity. Those are the types of applicants who get weeded out by these DEI statements. And we see that. And another part of what the government is claiming is that Harvard is engaged in viewpoint discrimination against conservatives. And you can see this in polling of the Harvard faculty. More than 80% of surveyed Harvard faculty identify as liberal. So my point is this, these DEI statements have been used in faculty hiring to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and to use race as a factor in hiring. I think in a similar way, they've now updated their admission application to make all the essays about race. So I think this idea that they're not playing a game here and they're not trying to engineer the student class around race, it's hard to believe, right? I mean, these are people who have not changed their ideology. They believe what they were doing before that 2023 case was trying to engineer the percentages of each student class to match the percentages of each race in the American population, right? And these are people who are doctrinaire about that ideology. So the idea that they're not still doing it, I think, is hard to believe. Now, of course, of course. So we all know what they're doing. And the alternative to the administration saying, just get rid of DEI is that every year or two, we're going to have new litigation where there'll be some whistleblower and it'll come out that Harvard's still engaging in racial discrimination. And then, you know, Harvard will be found guilty like they were in that 2023 case and they'll change their policy and they'll manipulate it and they'll play some new game and there'll be a new court case and we'll keep going back and forth with them. Or we can just say, stop it right now. Stop the DEI nonsense. Actually abide by both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court decision, Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard, and stop engaging in racial discrimination. And this is why I think the administration is correct here in pressing Harvard on this. Now, look, if Harvard wants to keep playing these games, they can. No one is saying that they have to get rid of DEI. They just have to give up their federal funding the way that Bob Jones University did. But the problem is that Harvard wants to have its cake and eat it too, right? They want to basically keep engaging in racial discrimination through these DEI policies, but they want federal funding and you can't have both.

SPEAKER_137: Do you think that these universities or universities in general that receive federal funding have become more ideologically, call it liberal, I would call it a little bit more kind of socialist oriented because they're dependent on federal funding? Do you see what I'm saying? Like, is it the case that this ideology accrues over time when you are much more dependent on the government?

SPEAKER_252: Do you mean there's no market feedback that keeps you in check?

SPEAKER_137: There's no private market. There's nothing that ultimately translates into a system where you're necessarily needing to be competitive for capital, competitive for talent. Like the accumulation of federal dollars over time makes you say, I deserve federal dollars. And the people that think that you deserve federal dollars-

SPEAKER_253: You're making a really good point and I think you could be right.

SPEAKER_01: Nick, can you please throw up the chart that I sent you, which is the amount of research between China and America? Okay. First, look at this. So again, you make these plans and you're like, where are we going to put the money?

SPEAKER_06: Okay. China says, guys, we are going to learn how to catch up to America in terms of spending on science.

SPEAKER_01: This is gross domestic expenditures on science. And what you see is China from basically nothing in 2001 is now neck and neck with the United States spending half a trillion dollars a year on core fundamental science research. So what happens as a by-product of that? Okay. So you spend more on the way in.

Chamath Palihapitiya: So China is listening to the market feedback. Freeberg, let's go and explore this idea that there is no market feedback in America. What are the long run implications? And you see it on this chart, which is, this is a simple chart that says, what percentage of all of the foundational research comes from the United States versus comes from China? And what's crazy about this chart is right around 2019, China passed the United States. This chart, by the way, only measures research that is published in English. Okay. So if you added in the research that China actually publishes in Chinese, they would have run away with this a decade earlier. So then you think about, okay, well, what is the implication of this? Well, the implication is obvious. These guys are inventing things. We're playing catch-up. Meanwhile, we're bumbling around talking about pronouns. We can't get our act together. This is why we need to be decisive. What is important here?

SPEAKER_137: So for NIH grants, this was published by the NIH, by the way, a few weeks ago on their Twitter account. So this is an image they put out. And on Feb 15th or thereabouts, the NIH said, any grants we give to universities now. So today, if you're a researcher, you're a scientist at a university like Harvard, I don't know if people realize this. The way you get funding for your lab is you will apply for a grant. Someone has to give you that capital to run your lab. And many grants come from the NIH. So they go to the NIH. They file for a grant. If the grant gets approved, they get $3 million, let's say. But what happens is that at the institution that they run that lab at, that institution can now bill the government for some negotiated percentage of the grant amount to cover administrative overhead. So at Harvard, you know what the administrative overhead was up until Feb 15th?

SPEAKER_256: 69%. Wait, no, wait a second. So you're saying $69 of every hundred go to administration.

SPEAKER_139: It's an incremental. And the other $31.

SPEAKER_137: Yeah, well, it's actually an incremental $69. So the way it works is that the lab gets a hundred and then Harvard bills the government $69.

SPEAKER_259: That's insane.

SPEAKER_137: That's insane. And this is true. And the average is around 30% today across universities and other institutions. So there's also this very fundamental question that's being asked in science right now, which is, are universities even the right place to be doing fundamental scientific research? In the United States, there are different models. Most of our research is done either at a private company, which is a small amount of research. And remember, I've talked about this a lot. But the big companies that have a market that's telling them you have to have a positive return on invested capital that have the scale to invest have the most incredible returns for America, like Google that put out the transformer model that launched everything that we see today and invested in Waymo for many years and drove the self-driving car revolution and all the work that was going on at Bell Labs up until we said Bell Labs is a monopoly. We broke them apart and they got destroyed. And so we largely aim to destroy large private research institutions in this country because we claim that they're monopolistic because of the way they source capital, which is through activities in the marketplace. So the question today that's being asked is, should we be doing fundamental scientific research at universities, given that over time, the administrative overhead has grown and they're basically creating administrative workloads and employing people without necessarily having a market incentive?

SPEAKER_01: Can I tell you a crazy story? This is a story I've never told, but a friend of mine is an incredibly well-respected banker on Wall Street, very senior guy, works at one of the big mainline banks. And a few years ago, this is about 18 months ago, two years ago, he had always wanted to work in government. And they tried to get him to join the Federal Reserve. And it was for a role that was

SPEAKER_06: very specific and narrow. It was to manage a very specific part of the interest rate mortgage market. It's a really important role. It's a little bit in the weeds, but it was like his dream job. You know,

SPEAKER_01: he did his PhD thesis on it, the whole nine years, whatever kind of thing. So he goes through these interviews and he sits with Jerome Powell, goes through that interview, sits with, I think, Lael Brainard, you know, everybody. And it was time for the final interview. And right before the person that was his kind of like shepherd says to him, you really need to play up your Indianness.

SPEAKER_06: Because what we really want is somebody who can help us tell a diverse story goes, well, my diversity is that I know this market better than literally anyone else in the world. Like nobody knows this. I know it. I've studied it since my PhD. And he was so offended. He was like, you know what, I'm not going to go through with this. And we lost them. We meaning the American taxpayer who supports all this. If you think of that example in all of the different places where we have not been hiring the right people, you get this slowdown in innovation, you get a slowdown in research, you get a slowdown in well-functioning organizations and institutions. And it's like a slow malaise. So how do you stop the

Chamath Palihapitiya: rot? You have to stop it at the top. And you have to do something that is meaningful. And if it requires

SPEAKER_06: us to at least threaten Harvard, by the way, look, let's be honest, it's called Harvard Corporation for

SPEAKER_01: a reason, right? It's run like a corporation, it is an asset manager that may happen to have some

Chamath Palihapitiya: educational things that they do on the side, which increasingly are not what we needed to do. And more importantly, it doesn't set the vanguard for how everybody wants to copy. And everybody used to want to copy Harvard. And now what they're copying are not the things that help us. So we have to find a way of waking them up and saying, guys, you have a responsibility for America. And maybe this

SPEAKER_02: is what it takes. And I hope they take the medicine and listen. Well, the Coulson brothers told us on a

SPEAKER_20: previous episode, they were just funding researchers and letting them pick their own research to a

SPEAKER_228: certain extent. Tim? How would you play up your Indian-ness with Jerome Powell?

SPEAKER_268: The idea of that is the best thing I've heard all week.

David Friedberg: I've asked him. He was told to play up his Indian-ness. And he was like, well, what does that mean, my Indian-ness? And they were like, well, you know,

SPEAKER_105: talk about your love of Indian dance and Indian food. And he was like, are you kidding me? Like, is this a serious conversation? I just love Jerome Powell sitting

SPEAKER_113: there and go, we were on the fence about you. But you showed up with this butter chicken. The chicken Mockney. I was going to bring it up.

SPEAKER_272: Yeah. You came in here with Sog Paneer.

SPEAKER_274: He was like, he wrote a sitar. He starts playing the sitar.

SPEAKER_277: Yeah. And it's like, what are you doing? Chai Masala. Who's that guy? He's showing up at a rickshaw. Turned it around.

SPEAKER_154: It's the chairman of the mortgage market.

SPEAKER_07: It's absolutely worked out. Hey, Tim, if you were in charge of this, because we do have some ins with the administration, maybe you should be directing some of this research. What would you tell me?

SPEAKER_179: If I wanted to study anything at Harvard, it would be Brigitte McCrone's gender.

SPEAKER_63: But I think we do have to focus on disease to an extent. But here's what I would say to add to that conversation. I would say that, like, these schools exist for a multitude of reasons.

SPEAKER_113: But one of them is to create a consensus among, you know, the wealthiest and obviously

SPEAKER_179: people that are expected to be the most powerful in society and to create a consensus about the values that are important to America at any given time. And I think the question should be, why are these values so important and to whom? I don't think this is altruism and it's about helping the working class or helping minorities or helping people get more economic justice. It actually seems to me quite a transparent attempt for certain people to keep positions of power and certain structures to stay in place while offering people this idea that there's a lot of change because there's a few ceremonial optical choices made where we're putting in a female CEO of color or someone who's Indian. But the internal structure stays the same. And if you just look at a school like Harvard, you go, oh, yes, socialist in some respects, but in some respects, actually. You know, if you challenge the Ukraine war, if you challenge aspects of the American empire, if you challenge certain look at all the wars, all of our wars are being sold with social justice. A lot of our wars are being sold because, you know, if we don't see a national security interest in it, we're told that, well, people in that country are not being treated well. That country has values that we don't have in the West. And that may be true. But in many cases, it's it's not worth going to war over. And most Americans would say that. So who exactly is benefiting from these programs and these values being instituted? It isn't low

SPEAKER_182: income people in the inner city. It isn't. It seems to be kind of a lot of the opposite of inclusion.

SPEAKER_188: It's the opposite of inclusion. It's the opposite of inclusion.

SPEAKER_179: What is happening? It's the establishment trying to preserve itself by shutting out certain ideas and certain people and, you know, giving very ceremonial nods to, you know, play up your Indianness, play up this, play up that. But, you know, it's like when the CIA goes and she goes, I'm the first female drone pilot. And a lot of Americans are going, what exactly is our national security interest in a drone strike in whatever country? And do we need to be doing this and should the money be better spent somewhere else? But instead of having that conversation, it's always ends up being hijacked. So this DEI to me just seems like a way for a lot of the same establishment people to keep their power and influence by offering these very optical advancements to people that may, you know, pay lip service to certain ideas. But when it comes down to it, they're very loyal to the same power factions that, you know, have always kind of driven

SPEAKER_63: the narrative in our country. Completely agree. What happened during comedy to you,

SPEAKER_20: Tim, and your cohort during that like peak DEI, peak cancellation? It felt like the Overton window was closing pretty harshly on you guys. There's a lot of attempted cancellations of comedians, people trying to secretly record you. You got those yonder, I don't know what those are called, those bags that you put, you put the phones in. What was that moment in time like?

SPEAKER_179: I was told by countless executives to play up my indie in this and I tried, but it was just in bad taste. It was in terrible taste when I came in and I tried to be Indian and it just wasn't good. No, I think here's what it was. I started, you know, having more of a career in let's say 2016, 2017, 2018. And then we were kind of on this path where you'd go have a meeting in Los Angeles with people about doing a show or whatever. And they would start all of these words and verbiage would creep

SPEAKER_201: in. They go, we're really interested in marginalized voices, elevating voices that haven't been heard. We're interested in empowering. And these are LA executives. They're monsters. They care nothing about anything. And that's where they're good at their job, right? The only reason you can be good at your job as an executive in the entertainment business is to really not look at human beings as humans. You have to look at them as objects. That's what you do.

SPEAKER_295: Manipulate. Pawns on the chessboard. It's what it is. You know what I mean? If I called my agent today and said, I'm really tired doing everything I'm doing. He'd say, have you tried drugs? Like they-

SPEAKER_00: Right. This would be, I'm just wondering about that because you have such high energy. I don't know why you're not embracing the cocaine.

SPEAKER_201: I don't need it. I don't need it yet. But if I do, and by the way, if I do, they'll provide it to me. Here's the deal. The way that town works is you have a bunch of people that believe in nothing

SPEAKER_179: and they can't. They can't and be effective. They have to go whichever way the wind is blowing. So when you have these people pulling up in Porsches with their houses in Malibu and they're coming and they then have a sudden interest in empowering people. These people were throwing

SPEAKER_201: women off into the Santa Monica Canyon for years. So it was this weird time where you had the worst people in the world trying to convince you that they had an interest in marginalized voices because

SPEAKER_179: they thought there was money there. Well, guess what? It turns out Americans don't really like to

SPEAKER_201: be patronized and they were never making TV that minorities wanted to watch. They were making TV that guilty white liberals wanted to watch. And it didn't make any money. Nobody really liked it. A lot

SPEAKER_179: of it kind of faded away. And as soon as it stopped being profitable, all the executives in Hollywood that supposedly cared so much about the marginalized voices rediscovered the profit motive. They rediscovered the idea that they had to make entertaining stuff. They rediscovered viewership. They rediscovered numbers. They rediscovered all these business fundamentals that they had ignored because they thought there was going to be a pot of gold at the end of all this elevating and

SPEAKER_201: empowering. But there wasn't because it was rejected largely by people. They didn't want to watch it.

SPEAKER_192: They were canceling all of you guys. They were canceling...

SPEAKER_143: Well, they were trying. It didn't work. They were trying to...

SPEAKER_179: They were trying. It didn't work because people at the end of the day realize that people are flawed, fallible, and human. And that's what makes them entertaining. You don't want a perfect person doing anything because that person is not going to be terribly interesting. You want someone who has flaws and has problems, obviously within reason. So I think that... Tim, can I ask you a question? Let's say that you are...

SPEAKER_98: I support Harvey Weinstein. Go on. I'm sorry. I didn't know if that was...

SPEAKER_307: No. Let's say that you are in charge of education in America. Yes.

SPEAKER_179: Okay. What would you do? Where would you start? What would you do? If I was in charge of education in America, number one, I would try to assert the idea that higher education itself needs to be for a purpose. And that there needs to be more of a purpose driven from middle school through high school. We need to start getting kids to think rationally about their skill set and their ability. And I don't think it's a good idea for these kids to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loans to go away for four years, not have a solid plan and not execute and then graduate mired in debt without really a pathway to paying any of it back and spending their twenties and maybe a good part of their thirties, incapable of owning a home, incapable of owning anything with no real investments. So I think this idea that like, you should follow your dream, which is this toxic American idea that I don't subscribe to. I think people have natures, they have skill sets, and they actually have to do something within the realm of that. And it requires being honest with children, which no one wants to do. And I would try to re-engineer education to be a more practical place where you would apply some of the skills that you actually had. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to experiment or have freedom, but I do think that we've told a lie to people, which is that they can be anything they want to be and do anything

SPEAKER_201: they want to do. And by the way, and here's a bunch of loans to do it. Here's hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. So now you can go into debt without any plan or any logical sense

SPEAKER_179: of what you want to do. I think we should start putting people into a more realistic mindset in high school about what needs to happen. Otherwise they're taken advantage of and abused by these systems of higher education, where they graduate mired in debt and without any type of standing in society. Oh my God. I want to, I want to add Jamal.

SPEAKER_311: Go ahead, Freyberg. And then I got a breaking news story.

SPEAKER_137: Okay. I want to just address this because I think it's, there's a moment here that I think will define a very different future for education, which is kind of a movement away from the current model of a school. AI is such a profound tool. The ability for AI to get to know your personality and just like teach my kids the way they want to be taught through conversation, through engagement, through dialogue, knowing that some kids want to ask questions and some kids want to just be told stuff. Some kids work at one pace, other kids work at another pace. And I know this idea of personalized education using computing has been around now for decades, but we really are in this moment where the idea of spending, you know, your first 18 years of life in a classroom where you're being told stuff that is quote, the truth versus learning how to engage with the world, ask questions, explore your world, find and identify things that are interesting to you, have it delivered to you in a very personalized, meaningful, rich way that also makes you excited about certain things and helps usher you on to the next phase of your life of what do you want to do with this and get kids out of this idea that you've got to go get the degree in order to get the job. And then I think the the workplace will adjust to that. I forgot who it is, whether it was Palantir or someone just started doing a program where they're like, skip college, come come and do your basically your apprenticeship here. So instead of going to college, you know, you know, it's paid, you'll continue your education, you'll work on projects, you'll make money, and you'll continue to have your development be done while you're learning a valuable skill. So I do think like as AI kind of takes over education, I do expect that the workplace will change, Tim. And we will start to see more of this integration between education and workplace enabled by this AI driven kind of, you know, development system, which is which is going to be radically different than what we have today.

SPEAKER_20: You with this AI, Tim, you like comedians, do they get in there?

SPEAKER_68: I don't with it. No, I'm a little skeptical of the tech people I talk about on my show. Of course, not you guys,

SPEAKER_143: but the other ones, you know, you guys seem, you know, I think it's great. Palantir goes to

SPEAKER_292: skip college, come get involved in advanced weapons technology.

SPEAKER_83: I think that's a phenomenal idea, actually. Come be a drone here at Palantir. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_179: But I like using my brain at the moment, but if it starts to fail, I imagine it will, I will, I will use AI, I know people that do use AI, my producer might use AI, I don't know, you probably won't tell me, but I do think that, listen,

SPEAKER_334: Have you used it to learn, Tim? Have you used it? Have you ever done any of the chat apps where you

SPEAKER_135: can talk to it and like, hey, you want to learn or get smart on something or get caught up on something? You can literally just ask questions and have a conversation with it.

SPEAKER_201: We've done it. We've done it. We did it on the show. We had an AI bot do a deliver rant in the

SPEAKER_179: style of me. It got pretty close, not good enough yet, but it was pretty close and pretty interesting to see how advanced it is right now and then how advanced it's going to be. You know, I worry a little bit about what you're going to do with all of these people once AI starts taking a lot of these jobs.

SPEAKER_338: Hmm. The cashiers, the Uber drivers, door dashers, all these jobs could go away, you're saying.

SPEAKER_201: Five years ago, I was a tour guide on a double, not five years ago, but seven or eight years ago,

SPEAKER_179: I was a tour guide on a double decker bus in New York City while I was learning how to be a comedian. And I was showing people the Empire State Building and like all the 9-11 memorial, whatever. And these are the types of jobs. I was making $13 an hour. And I was obviously, you know, it wasn't well paid. It wasn't an amazing job, but it offered me the freedom to get good at something else. But I was taking a lot of risk to do it. And I tolerated that level of risk because I believed what I was doing was the right thing, the right course of action. But it's jobs like that, that allow some

SPEAKER_201: of the most interesting, you know, like weird lives that people should be able to live if they want to. I don't think everybody may want or need to have a full-time job. There are people that have retired and go, I'd like to be a tour guide, or I'd like to work at a museum a few days a week.

SPEAKER_177: Is that where you refined your standup was being on the double decker bus? You know, were you able to put one-liners in there?

SPEAKER_339: I was able to do all kinds of stuff like that. To me, it's like those jobs, right? Yes. Some of those, I don't think the entire economy should be the gig economy, but I do think

SPEAKER_179: some of those jobs that are going to be eliminated by AI are the jobs that allow people to get good at other things while they're doing them. So people that are in entertainment and music and stuff like that, we want them to be able to support themselves while they enrich us culturally in other ways.

SPEAKER_139: Crazy breaking news story right now. Sorry, Sax, I didn't mean to have this blindside you here,

SPEAKER_20: but, and I know you were at the administration, you don't speak for the administration necessarily on this issue, but it looks like the Federal Reserve has a new chairman. It's just breaking news here.

SPEAKER_345: That's so racist.

SPEAKER_298: It says, hot up the wire, Trump is named Chamath, that's for the Federal Reserve. I think all these

SPEAKER_20: fundraisers worked out for you, but there is a note, they asked Chamath to be more Sri Lankan. So if you

SPEAKER_349: could, to the extent you could be more Sri Lankan, is he really Sri Lankan?

SPEAKER_179: I read a great book about the Tamil Tigers many years ago. Do you remember them? Yes. They invented suicide bombing. They did. Listen, be proud. Be proud of stuff.

SPEAKER_208: Are you saying Tim that the great export of Sri Lanka was suicide vests? I'm saying be proud of stuff.

SPEAKER_158: That was the ethnic minority that was fighting for a homeland. I was part of the ethnic majority.

SPEAKER_261: You were the one trying to avoid the suicide vests. No, my dad was the one that spoke out against the war. That's why we

SPEAKER_361: we had to skedaddle and claim refugee status.

SPEAKER_360: Potato, potato. I support both. I'm the only person with the moral courage to say, I support Israel and Hamas and Russia and Ukraine.

SPEAKER_363: You can just want to see a good game. You can want to see a good game. You don't have to take a side.

SPEAKER_149: Over time, if there's a lead change, you like a lead change. Listen, it really depends on Beverly Hills who I'm having lunch with and what type of

SPEAKER_201: Middle Eastern they are, because I can go either way on that.

SPEAKER_63: And I think it's important. You don't want to be too rigid in this economy. You need to be able to move into things. And I will read the audience.

SPEAKER_369: I see both sides. I've read the Israel stuff and the Palestine stuff. They're both right. So guess what? That's right. So at the end of the day, what's right for Timmy's career?

SPEAKER_19: Is that an approach you could take?

SPEAKER_369: What's right for me? What's the easiest lunch? What's the easiest afternoon for me?

SPEAKER_149: What, you know, that's the move. Path of least resistance. That's the move for me. Always, all the time, you know? Right. So, you know? Absolutely, absolutely.

SPEAKER_369: I don't, what Putin did, was it right? No, but do I like the idea of the oligarch, the furs, the boats, the kind of lifestyle? Yes, the kind of tracksuit. The yacht. Yes, that to me has always spoken to me. Somebody said to me once, you're spiritually Russian. So I think I have that in me, so I just can't ignore it.

SPEAKER_19: So how would you rank your dictators? Are you, it sounds like you're a Putin guy or you're a shit guy?

SPEAKER_292: Putin has a lot of class, whether you like him or not, he has a lot of class. And number one, people do fall out of windows in London.

SPEAKER_179: It does happen, actually. Accidents happen. So it's not always, you know what I mean? It's like, sometimes somebody does take a spell and it's not always him. Um, I like him. I, I like, uh, Kim. I think it's Jong-un in North Korea. Yeah. I like him. He has style as well.

SPEAKER_378: Don't forget Zelensky.

SPEAKER_380: Oh, I'm sacks. Zelensky, I don't know. He's kind of new school.

SPEAKER_381: He just extended military rules. But can you imagine when they tell him not bring up Ukraine with sacks? So be careful. He just extended martial law. There's no election.

SPEAKER_384: By the way, I like sacks on this. And I think when they told Putin that a comedian was now the president of the Ukraine,

SPEAKER_179: Putin probably said, listen, are they serious? Are they even trying anymore?

SPEAKER_295: He goes, is the CIA even trying anymore? Are you serious? Wait, the guy who played the president in a TV show is now the actual president? Yes. And Putin's getting this information sitting there in his palace.

SPEAKER_179: Like, I mean, so, I mean, listen, all wars, tragedy. It's all terrible and bad. But, you know, we also, I think David's done a phenomenal job, by the way, of looking at how you get to certain places.

SPEAKER_393: Absolutely.

SPEAKER_179: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_154: And then I think you do a lot of private shows, yeah? You do a lot of private shows, Tim. The private shows with the dictators, the despots, the monarchies, they pay what?

SPEAKER_83: Three to one? Four to one? They want to laugh. These people, they want to laugh. You know, I mean, Duterte likes to laugh. You know, these people want to laugh.

SPEAKER_201: And I'm not here. MBS wants to laugh.

SPEAKER_179: I'm not here to pass judgment on the audience. I'm here to bring, well, it's actually funny. I did, like, one private gig. I don't get booked on a lot of private gigs. But I got one big Bitcoin guy in Romania had me go to his birthday party. And it was just this older oligarch type guy. And they all spoke Romanian. It was very hard. And they paid me $100,000 to do 20 minutes. And they didn't really understand anything. And then one guy just stood up. And I guess he recognized me. He started yelling, Joragan, Joragan, and then sat down.

SPEAKER_289: So I am open to performing for anyone, really, truly. And anyone. Edie, I mean, Iran. You could just, Kim Jong-un, just send the ticket.

SPEAKER_396: Hey, is the money green over there?

SPEAKER_97: The money's not clean, but. That's got to be an underserved market. Is Iran that dangerous? I mean, all I hear now every day is Iran's coming to kill everyone. Is that true? I don't know. I'm okay. Are they invading? Is Iran landing in Aspen?

SPEAKER_192: Building nukes. Maybe you want to wipe out one or two countries. A little genocide. Wish fulfillment.

SPEAKER_404: How far are they along on those nukes? We don't know that. 80%.

SPEAKER_192: 80% of them. You think 80%? They're perpetually at 80%. We just keep knocking out the last 20 years. I think the approach, the.

SPEAKER_98: I just don't think we need boots on the ground there. I don't think we need to do this again. The two of you are the living embodiment of ADHD.

SPEAKER_409: Yes. Speaking of ADHD, do we want to go ADHD or science?

SPEAKER_412: Tim, J. Cal falls for every pro-war narrative there is. He's like, I'm against war, but then he falls for every single narrative they pay. Right. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_172: Absolutely. And what a great job you guys have done ending the war on day one of your administration. Congratulations.

SPEAKER_412: At least he's trying.

SPEAKER_414: Buying kept escalating. Wake me up when you actually accomplish something. Can I actually defend the administration? We've actually ended it spiritually.

SPEAKER_415: Please. We've ended it spiritually.

SPEAKER_179: We have, yes. We no longer believe in it. It's actually happening in the physical world, but actually spiritually, the war is over.

SPEAKER_420: Yes. So you're manifesting the end of the war. Well, it's over for me. The Ukraine war is fully over for me.

SPEAKER_289: Got it.

SPEAKER_421: Zelensky refuses to make a deal. You saw what happened at the White House.

SPEAKER_02: I mean, if only we had a deal maker to help with this. Let's keep with it.

SPEAKER_01: Jason, you know how you would know this for sure? Because my intuition tells me that what Tim just said is totally right, is the number of Ukraine flags that were taken off of profile photos. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_411: The one with the pronouns. It's a lie.

SPEAKER_423: Even though it's a joke, I am being very dead serious. The idea of it has ended.

SPEAKER_179: It is now just about a border negotiation. It is no longer a totemic struggle for freedom or whatever it was being sold to us as.

SPEAKER_147: Totally agree.

SPEAKER_426: Hey, I think I'll still believe that.

SPEAKER_147: You can speak for yourself.

SPEAKER_427: I believe the free countries, just to be clear, I believe the free countries should stop the non-free countries from invading them. That's it. It's a pretty simple philosophy. Freeberg, what's in science? He actually thinks Ukraine is free.

SPEAKER_15: Tim, at the end of the show, we like to do a little science corner.

SPEAKER_179: What happened to all those Vice documentaries about the Ukraine being the most corrupt country in Europe and like a white supremacist country and all these things. What happened to all those Vice documentaries about that? They seem to disappear. Well, Vice went out of business. Vice went out of business. They seem to disappear very quickly when Ukraine became a bastion of freedom and love

SPEAKER_299: and opportunity and equality. Now you're speaking Saxe's language. Oh, look at that smile on Saxe's face.

SPEAKER_438: Well, Nick, just put this on the screen. I mean, this just happened yesterday.

SPEAKER_439: Oh, God. But now we've started the Ukraine vortex.

David Sacks: Ukraine's parliament extends martial law till August. That seems extreme. Yeah, no big deal. They cancel elections.

SPEAKER_09: They cancel freedom of the press. They cancel freedom of religion. Zelensky's political opponents, their assets have been seized. They've been in prison. No big deal. It's still democracy.

SPEAKER_444: His favorite dictator is Putin as well.

SPEAKER_445: Hey, Dave Freeberg.

SPEAKER_63: Well, who's the first leader after 9-11 to call the United States and express sympathy? I believe it was Vladimir Putin.

SPEAKER_179: How many times has Vladimir Putin threatened American interests over the last 20 odd years? Like, has Vladimir Putin, has Russia been an existential threat to America? Have they disrupted huge amounts of our trade?

SPEAKER_182: Have they, it seems to me very odd.

SPEAKER_09: He wanted to be in NATO. He wanted to be our ally. Right. But you know what the best quality of Putin is? We're not funding him.

SPEAKER_447: He's not asking for American money. The rest of these dictators, we keep funding.

SPEAKER_360: He's not asking for a dollar. I also like that he's well-read. It's well-read. Yeah. But he's not coming to the White House begging.

SPEAKER_451: He's not coming to the White House every three months begging for more hundreds of billions.

SPEAKER_68: But any criticism of the Ukraine war means that you love Putin and want to live in Russia and think

SPEAKER_179: Russia's great. That's a weird Manichaean sense of good and evil that was instituted by George W. Bush right after 9-11 when he said, you're with us or against us. We're going to democratize the Middle East, which I fell for because I was 17 and on cocaine. But in hindsight, it didn't work tremendously well. And I'm very skeptical of these narratives where they say, so if you find any fault at all in what we're doing, you're aiding and abetting a dictator.

SPEAKER_289: It makes no sense to me. Speaking of the 90s and cocaine, Friedberg, what's inside his corner?

SPEAKER_412: You'll notice he's moving on, Tim. He doesn't know how to respond to that.

SPEAKER_20: No, no, Friedberg is really upset the last couple of weeks that he got preempted. I'm trying to do right by Friedberg and the Friedberg stans who are just absolutely mental now that we haven't talked about his incredible victory on Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_455: And we haven't gotten to the science corner in a couple of weeks. Congrats.

SPEAKER_20: Tim, if you were ever, what game show do you want to be on, Tim?

SPEAKER_402: None of them. None of them. None? All the money on Celebrity Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_20: Which one would you want to host, Tim? No game shows. You wouldn't host a game show. You must have been offered.

SPEAKER_179: No, never. I don't think I'm what they want for the game show.

SPEAKER_458: That's a money printing machine you could get in a game show family.

SPEAKER_334: It all goes to charity. Was it, Friedberg, was it hard?

SPEAKER_137: Yeah, well, I shot the quarterfinal and semifinal in the same afternoon. So I didn't have any, you know, you go away for lunch and you come back for the semifinals. And I did not know how to use that buzzer. And everyone else I think had practiced or figured that stuff out. So it was pretty difficult. And then my brain was just like blank on some of these moments. You're just up there. There's this intensity. You're in this game show. And it's like, I know the answer. Why is it not coming out of my mouth? Or why did I say that thing that I know is wrong? That just came out of my mouth? It's a little bit kind of scary how much.

SPEAKER_155: Let's show the clip here. And then we'll go on to Science Corner. Watch this clip. Watch this. Final Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_258: I'm in last place. So I was behind the entire game. I was basically in last place the whole game.

SPEAKER_465: Playing catch up. Short stats. I could not buzz in in time.

SPEAKER_467: It all comes down to this. Final Jeopardy in a very close game. So exciting. Film festivals is the category. Here's the clue, players. Come on, Friedberg. Called the premier movie industry event for the Balkans. This festival began 30 years ago while the city was under siege. We'll begin on the end with Dave Friedberg who had $8,700. And it looks like he changed his answer at the last minute. What happened here? He wrote down something and crossed it out and wrote Sarajevo Film Festival. We can read Sarajevo and that's the important part, right? We're going to give you credit. You wagered $8,697 and now you have $17,397. You're ahead of Mina Kimes at the moment with $17,000. What did she put down?

SPEAKER_471: I did my math wrong. Oh my God. She wrote down can and she wagered $1,000.

SPEAKER_467: That drops her down to $16,000. That's wrong. So it comes down to Sean Gunn who had $22,000. Did he know it was the Sarajevo Film Festival? He said Bosnia, right country, wrong city. What did you wager? $12,001. Close. $9,999 and from fair in place Dave Friedberg comes back.

SPEAKER_475: What did he do? He didn't get to bet.

SPEAKER_179: Can I ask a question and this is a very, this is a serious question and it's not disrespectful. Why do they call this celebrity Jeopardy? You're correct. Yeah.

SPEAKER_182: Identify one of those people with a gun to my head.

SPEAKER_487: I don't know. There were 27. I didn't know any of them. I felt in place. I felt like I belong.

SPEAKER_20: I mean, I think the guy in the middle with James Gunn's brother who was in, he played like the 17th guy in Guardians of the Galaxy. What is happening? I mean, if you're going to Marvel Universe's

SPEAKER_499: characters who don't have speaking roles, pull him up for a second. He has non-speaking role in a Marvel movie. Come on, stop. There's 1,400 Marvel movies and this guy hasn't spoken to one. Come on, stop. Him, that's a Marvel.

SPEAKER_502: Who was the other lady?

SPEAKER_499: I think she's.

SPEAKER_502: Who's that? I mean.

SPEAKER_427: She's on ESPN. A researcher on ESPN and she does fencing, right? She's the fencing person from ESPN?

SPEAKER_506: I think she covers football on ESPN.

SPEAKER_427: Football or foosball?

SPEAKER_506: But Tim's right.

SPEAKER_510: Was this actually Celebrity Jeopardy or is this just like Jeopardy?

SPEAKER_513: Just call it Jeopardy. Just call it Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_517: It could be Jeopardy. Easy Jeopardy. Just call it Jeopardy. Just call it, hey, we're doing this thing now. They should do a Comedian Jeopardy. Charity Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_523: Okay, the finals are next Wednesday at 9 PM. Have you actually done the episode? Have you done the finals?

SPEAKER_524: When is the final episode?

SPEAKER_20: How do we make money off this? How do we front run this? Oh, he's done it already. So you know the winner. Why don't we do a poly market for this? And we could all cash in and get off this show.

SPEAKER_402: We could all just cash in.

SPEAKER_530: Get off this show. What the fuck? Somebody can shoot this doc. There is a dollar number, J-Cal. There is a dollar number. Are people watching this? 10 times 30 million?

SPEAKER_538: 10 times 40 million? What's 25% about, baby? Who's the first to put a rip course?

SPEAKER_06: Actually, Tim's asking, do the ratings go up or down for Celebrity Jeopardy?

SPEAKER_135: Down.

SPEAKER_541: Certainly down for Celebrity Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_135: They used to be good. So I think regular Je... Well, they do it at 9 PM on Wednesday nights. Okay, so it's not even during...

SPEAKER_420: But there's no upside for a celebrity to go on this. If a celebrity goes on this and they're known for being smart. George Clooney goes on, right, Tim?

SPEAKER_543: Exactly. I realized this when I got there. I'm like, wait a second. There's no upside in me doing this. I'm gonna look like an idiot. And I answered all these stupid questions wrong. And I look like a moron. I'm like, why did I do that? That was not a good move.

SPEAKER_64: No, it's a stupid show that should go away. Yeah. Jeopardy should go away. I agree. I agree.

SPEAKER_182: No, I mean, it's like this idea that like all these people that nobody knows the hell they are. It just, you know, people at home are going, who the hell? What the is this?

SPEAKER_97: The lady from ESPN says caught. Like she thinks it's in France. Like this is just making people mad that go,

SPEAKER_149: Hey man, I got nothing going on. And these people are celebrities. They're idiots. I mean, same continent. She hit the same continent, right? It's just filling people with rage, looking at these people that aren't even celebrities. And on top of that are morons. I mean, you have an obligation to either be a celebrity. It did say the Balkans.

SPEAKER_555: It did say the Balkans.

SPEAKER_23: It did say the Balkans. This is, it's a little rough. I mean, a little brutal. Hey, save the show, Dave, please. Give us a science corner.

SPEAKER_560: Okay, I'll do a quick science corner. And the name of the game here, Tillon,

SPEAKER_20: just since your first time on the show is somehow, if you can get around the horn and put in a Uranus joke, you'll just kill with the audience. I'm going to try to do that. My producer right now,

SPEAKER_292: we're setting up a company in Bhutan. That's my whole thing now. Oh, you're going to be flipping H100s? Excellent. I just learned so much on the front half of this show. It's a company in Bhutan. Give us the chips.

SPEAKER_201: Wink, wink. You're not going to Beijing at all. Wink. My godson's Chinese.

SPEAKER_566: They go in the back. They go through the front, maybe the side door. There's a truck.

SPEAKER_201: My godson, truly, I swear to God, they brought him to my home when he was four months old because I'm single and I have a little bit of money, not compared to you, but compared to these people. And they said, would you be his godfather? He's Chinese. Absolutely. I said, high end, let's go. Four years later, they tell me, they go, he's actually Filipino.

SPEAKER_83: I'm not even kidding. So this is why you can't trust anyone in this country about anything.

SPEAKER_571: Even your adoption. You're, wow. Oh my god. A corrupt adoption.

SPEAKER_80: Incredible. You got a Fugazi. Okay, let's do science corner. Science corner. Mitochondria or?

SPEAKER_574: Today is mitochondria therapy day.

SPEAKER_137: So every cell in our body has mitochondria. Tim, you know that, right? And-

SPEAKER_576: Yeah, it's the powerhouse of the cell.

SPEAKER_334: Powerhouse of the cell. Exactly. And it's a little organelle.

SPEAKER_579: Is this the last segment? Yeah, you can drop off Sax. Okay, see you later. Sax, I'll see you in Moscow.

SPEAKER_581: Okay, yeah. Excellent. I'll see you at the Putin Film Festival.

SPEAKER_585: You forgot to say what is Putin Film Festival. I'll see you at the Moscow Film Festival. I mean, yeah, I need to run to Sean Hannity's show, unfortunately. Sorry, no, unfortunately.

SPEAKER_63: Don't say unfortunately. You can leave that in. I like him. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_588: He's amazing, yes.

SPEAKER_63: I really enjoy you guys. Thank you for having me on. I really learned this was amazing.

SPEAKER_179: And I'd love to, I'd love to do it again. I appreciate all of you. I think you're, I think you're all great. And whatever you're doing on the side,

SPEAKER_201: whatever you people eventually get arrested for, I support you. Just know that. I'm, I'm a supporter of whatever happens in the online podcast.

SPEAKER_594: Yes, we'll do some securities fraud on the, yeah, we'll get into some challenges.

SPEAKER_83: Whenever it comes out that there's a reason why you knew so much about the Bhutan company. It doesn't matter to me. It's not. I'm a fan. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

SPEAKER_20: Thank you, Tim Dillon. Everybody watch Tim Dillon's special on the Netflix. Hopefully he can. He was great. Finally eclipse love on the spectrum.

SPEAKER_43: Love on the spectrum.

SPEAKER_604: Yeah. Definitely. All right. See you guys.

SPEAKER_606: It's like, okay, free burgers. And then there were three. You know what?

SPEAKER_530: Now I'm motivated to do Science Corner as a standalone show. And we're going to launch it in the next month.

SPEAKER_609: I'm going to do Science Corner with you. You do Task Corner with me. I'm going to eat lunch. I love you guys. We're doing Science Corner.

SPEAKER_614: Let's go. I got it. I got your Science Corner. I'm with you to the end, brother. Free Burgers, me and you, buddy.

SPEAKER_334: Tell me about Science Corner. I'm interested. You're interested. We've got no listeners. We've got no audience at this point.

SPEAKER_617: I'm here for your segment. Go ahead, Dave.

SPEAKER_137: For the four of you and Chamath. Okay. So mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell, as Tim just told us, educated us, right? So every cell has hundreds of mitochondria. Mitochondria are what are called organelles. They have their own DNA. In fact, evolutionarily, mitochondria were bacteria that basically ended up in the symbiotic relationship with what became our cells. So we each have mitochondria, hundreds of them in each one of our cells. Each mitochondria has its own nucleus and has its own DNA. And the mitochondria make the energy that the rest of the cell uses. That energy is called ATP. And it eats up glucose or it eats up ketones, if you're in ketosis. And it uses that to make the ATP. So every cell in our body gets its energy, which is what it uses to function, from the mitochondria. And so there's been a lot of research into the relationship between mitochondria and aging. And that dysfunctional mitochondria, as they start to break down and stop working and have damage, may actually be a key driver for many diseases that we experience as humans, including many cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, features of autism, muscle tissues being weak, etc. So as the cells get older and the mitochondria stop working, we make new mitochondria. But over time, the DNA degrades and the mitochondria become less effective. And there are fewer functional mitochondria per cell. The cell stops working right. Can I ask you a question? And eventually the organism stops working right.

SPEAKER_619: Have you learned anything about the connection of creatine to mitochondrial health?

SPEAKER_137: It's part of some of the processes, but there's some separate research on this, but it's definitely worth spending time on. People are crazy about hitting 5 grams or 10 grams of creatine.

SPEAKER_620: It's becoming like a trend. Yeah, I think it's 5 grams. Yeah, something like that.

SPEAKER_02: It's trending on Twitter. I think it's kind of like a meme or a joke in addition to being serious. I don't think it's a joke.

SPEAKER_01: Is there any science that backs that up or not really for mitochondria?

SPEAKER_137: There are questions on this, like, do you want to focus on things that are increasing biogenesis, which is creation of new mitochondria? Does that create a better benefit? On the creatine work, I've read some of these papers. I actually tried it for a while. I personally had an allergy to it, which is kind of rare, but happens. But anyway, we can talk about it further. So one of the key things was, there are three papers that I wanted to just highlight that kind of follow an interesting theme. The first one was from 2023 from Wash U in St. Louis. And this paper, Nick, if you could just pull up that image of mitochondria being transferred, these folks identified and demonstrated that mitochondria can actually transfer from one cell to another. So if you've got a cell that's got damaged or dysfunctional mitochondria, they've identified three mechanisms by which mitochondria can move into a cell that needs more mitochondria that are working and are more functional. That's something that's been theorized for a long time. People have said, oh, well, we think mitochondria transfer, but there wasn't really evidence of this. So as of two years ago, these guys provided very good evidence of mitochondria that we can now put into cells. If it's floating around, it can make its way into another cell. And as a result, it can rejuvenate or provide energy to a dysfunctional cell, which might improve dysfunctional tissue or improve disease. The second paper was done last month out of Columbia University. And this was the first mapping of the mitochondria in the human brain. And so these folks created 703 tiny cubes of brain from a person that passed away, a 54-year-old donor. And then they analyzed the mitochondria in each of those cubes, and they used that to make a map of mitochondria in the brain. And what it showed was that different parts of the brain, different cells had different amounts of mitochondria and different mitochondrial function, which actually starts to highlight how that difference in energy production in different cells in different parts of the brain may actually cause some of the things like memory loss or speech impairment, or as we age, the fact that we end up being, you know, kind of forgetful or start to lose some of our capacity, that the mitochondrial dysfunction in the brain might actually be the key driver of that aging symptomology. The third paper, which just came out, came out of a team at Shenzhen University in China. So what these guys did, which was really incredible, is they took stem cells. So stem cells that they got out of human blood and they took those stem cells and they figured out a way to treat the stem cells so that those stem cells would start to make an excess amount of mitochondria than they normally would make. In fact, they were able to get those stem cells to make 854 times the number of mitochondria that those cells would normally make. And those mitochondria were on average 5.7 times more efficient at making energy, ATP. So they created highly energetic mitochondria and they made a lot of them. And the idea that we can put mitochondria into our body or into tissue in our body to heal it or repair it has been something that folks have been trying to do research around for a long time, but the limiting factor is access to enough mitochondria. So this mechanism that they developed where they could take stem cells, make copies of the stem cells, make lots of mitochondria, and then they isolate that mitochondria and use it as a therapeutic tool. And they did it in cartilage that was damaged and they were able to heal that cartilage. So this is a group that does bone and tissue repair studies, but they applied the mitochondria directly into the area where there was damage to the bone and the bone grew back and it actually improved the healing in an incredible way. So this opens up the door to this whole new therapeutic modality, a new type of therapy called mitotherapy or mitochondrial therapy, that based on the series of papers that we're seeing coming out recently, I believe could end up becoming a really incredible new therapy that may ultimately lead to the treatment for many diseases that we're kind of dealing with right now. So I just wanted to kind of link those out.

SPEAKER_00: Would this be immediately applicable to say people with sports injuries, you know, meniscus, knees, ankles, you start to think about those bones, spurs, chips,

SPEAKER_20: that basketball players, football players go through, would this be like the low hanging fruit for this technology?

SPEAKER_137: Yeah, I mean, what they did this in, and I think this was published in a research magazine called Bone or something, Bone and Tissue or something.

SPEAKER_631: Yeah.

SPEAKER_137: But they did it in osteo...

SPEAKER_631: I let my subscription lapse. I got to remind me.

SPEAKER_137: They did it in a model, a mouse model of osteoarthritis, and it repaired this osteoarthritis, but that's exactly right. And so that's tissue where you can, using a microscope, you can actually see the healing happening. But you can see this being applied, for example, to cerebrospinal fluid, where you can basically increase the mitochondrial, the energetic mitochondrial production, that finds its way into maybe neuronal cells, into neurons in your brain, and improve your brain function. Or you could put it into damaged hearts after heart attacks and improve heart function. So there's all these theories about how you could use mitotherapy, as this becomes possible to now produce lots of mitochondria, and use it as a therapy that can then be applied to lots of disease. So I think there's going to be a bit of a blossoming of research in this area. Chamath, they could take this,

SPEAKER_20: if they can get this going in the next two years or so, they could get this, and Biden could actually compete with Trump for his third term, if they could get this to Biden in time.

SPEAKER_637: I mean, that's... Is the microphone on?

SPEAKER_188: That's exceptionally mean, and I think that that's not... It's just a joke. Oh, now all of a sudden you're defending. By the way, did you guys see... Did you guys see George Clooney? Uh, what do you guys think of his new haircut, his hair color?

SPEAKER_621: I noticed he was... He's dyeing his hair. He was gray, and now he looks...

SPEAKER_637: It must be... It must be for an acting job, because his hair...

SPEAKER_640: I hadn't seen this. This is crazy.

SPEAKER_637: He looks... It looks like his face is melting.

SPEAKER_643: Oh my God, he looks so weird.

SPEAKER_402: It looks like he did a, um... I don't know, like, what do they call that hair coloring for men? Like, you put it in the shower. It looks very weird.

SPEAKER_617: Well, he just did an interview explaining his whole op-ed on Biden, but it's in that clip where he looks very different.

SPEAKER_01: What did he say on Biden? I thought he looked really... He said he felt compelled to act and that it was a civic duty, although the dates don't match up, but nobody ever questioned him about that. But he looks really good.

SPEAKER_107: He did not get a call from Obama? Salted pepper hair.

SPEAKER_637: You know?

SPEAKER_649: Salted pepper works 100%.

SPEAKER_107: For him, yeah. Clooney's a very handsome guy, but in that interview, he did. I don't think he looked perfect.

SPEAKER_650: You guys watch the White Lotus, by the way? Did you guys watch White Lotus?

SPEAKER_06: What do we think? Okay, so I don't know what it was, but I had heard from a bunch of you guys in the group chat that the show was not good. So Nat and I ignored it. Then we started it. We watched one episode. Phenomenal. Oh, you loved it? Well, we're one episode in, but it was great. And we were like, this is really good. And then, you know...

SPEAKER_24: I don't think it's terrible. And the kid Schwarzenegger, Patrick Schwarzenegger,

SPEAKER_193: is a fan of All In, apparently. Patrick Schwarzenegger?

SPEAKER_105: I can tell that that guy

SPEAKER_06: has one of the most interesting roles in that series. I'm really looking forward to him. Who else was really cool?

SPEAKER_656: We DMed the other day. We were following each other. I saw, and he said,

SPEAKER_23: great pod. He DMed me and said, great pod. And I said, great job. And then I mentioned, you know...

SPEAKER_222: Patrick Schwarzenegger is your friend.

SPEAKER_192: Well, I guess it's like, what does it mean? Like micro celebrity DM friends? I don't know.

SPEAKER_659: You could be on Celebrity Jeopardy, Jacob.

SPEAKER_192: I could literally be on Celebrity Jeopardy.

SPEAKER_00: I think I would prefer to do Hollywood Squares. I feel like Hollywood Squares, I could shine because you get a little one-liners in,

SPEAKER_20: like the jokes are kind of built into it. A lot more fun. But I think we should do Family Feud versus another podcast squad.

SPEAKER_193: So like us versus... Why do you aim so high always? Well, I think Family Feud's funny. I think it's funny. All right, everybody. This has been another amazing...

SPEAKER_661: That would be a lot of fun. That's a good idea. In fact, we should do it with Schultz and his crew. The four of them and the four of us.

SPEAKER_662: No, you're incorrect. No, no, no.

SPEAKER_665: People would love it. Yeah. Yeah. This is definitely something for Jon to get on.

SPEAKER_18: If we're done sniffing our own butts, let's go. We've got to go. Okay. Love you guys. I miss you.

SPEAKER_227: For the number one podcast in the world, Shamath Palihapitiya,

SPEAKER_00: your Chairman Dictator, David Freeberg, your Sultan of Science, Tim Dillon. Great job today. And we will see you all at the... And David Sox. Don't forget David Sox. And I'm sorry. The Tsar. The Tsar. Huzzah to the Tsar, who apparently is back. You can't. It was a little high. And I was back. Love you boys.

SPEAKER_20: All in Summit, September 7 to 9.

SPEAKER_672: Bye bye.

SPEAKER_20: All in fan meetups are happening. Episode 225, Saturday, April 26. Go to allin.com slash meetups

SPEAKER_402: to join and meet and host a meetup with other all in fans in your town. We'll see you all next time. Bye bye. Bye bye.

SPEAKER_673: Brain man David Sox.

SPEAKER_36: You've been sourced it to the face.

SPEAKER_685: Get merch.

SPEAKER_690: I'm doing it.