SPEAKER_00: All right. Happy birthday, Chamath. We're here taping on your 50th birthday. Super exciting for you, brother. Thank you. It's really great. I got a birthday letter from the big man. Oh, wow.

SPEAKER_03: If you had asked my parents, 50 years later, you're going to have a kid that gets a letter from the then sitting president of the United States. They would have thought,

SPEAKER_07: absolutely not possible. Wow. Look at that. Which White House intern wrote that?

SPEAKER_13: Well, actually speaking about interns, it was an intern. In this case, it was my son. The story

SPEAKER_03: was that, you know, Braden worked at the White House all summer as an intern. And at the end of the summer, you know, he used all of the political capital he built and put in a request to get this letter from the president. And he did it. Obviously, I want to thank POTUS for sending me the letter, but I really want to thank my son because it was a really thoughtful, thoughtful thing that he did

David Sacks: for me. So really appreciative of that. That actually is impressive because, you know, it takes time out of the president's schedule to sign things. So that's why I mean something,

SPEAKER_27: you know. All right. Listen, breaking news, breaking news. It's a breaking news story here on the All In Podcast. OpenAI is rolling out. ChatGPT6, aka Astra. A-S-T-R-A, folks. This is their new flagship model. It's going to be available to a limited set of organizations in the coming days. Y'all will be able to get it if you have a credit card in your ChatGPT account, i.e. the PlusPro business and enterprise users. You're going to get it soon. Greg Brockman says he believes OpenAI has entered the AGI era. And we've talked about that here before. Sam Altman is, well, he's back to being a little bit performative slash alarmist, or he sincerely believes that this is the one. Here's what he said at Wednesday's G20 summit. Quote, much, much, much, three muches. More capable models are coming soon. The next generation of models are going to be sobering for everyone.

SPEAKER_29: And his final quote, I think no one intellectually honest can look at what's happening and not feel

SPEAKER_30: the weight of responsibility in front of us. My Lord. A little bit of drama there added to his quotes. People are freaking out about the benchmarks, which are off the charts. Some people are saying

SPEAKER_31: this is the one. Your thoughts, Chamath?

SPEAKER_03: I don't think normal humans know how to read this chart and infer anything useful from it. The more important takeaway, I agree with Greg. I think AGI has basically been here since the beginning of the year. There are models that are incredibly performant inside of the closed frontier lab companies. And I think right now we're trying to figure out the right cadence with which to release it. I think it's very important. I also think that these capabilities will be matched or close to matched by a handful of closed source alternatives and open source alternatives, probably within the next three or four months. So I think the right way to think about this for most people is we are seeing incredible intelligence capabilities be broadly available. And we are seeing the cost of that incremental unit of intelligence being driven further and further down. So it's a really positive trend. Now I think it's just the messy middle part of organizing this properly for companies and for people and building things that are useful and showing an actual ROI and I would just keep calm and

SPEAKER_39: carry on. Okay, Sax, any thoughts here on breaking news today? And then Freber, I'll get your reaction.

SPEAKER_41: But by the way, it is very exciting. And congratulations to OpenAI. And I'm sure

SPEAKER_43: Anthropic will have something as Grok, you know, Grok still has yet to drop for six is coming. That's going to be a blockbuster. The meta models are really good. Gemini just dropped something yesterday that was exceptional. So the great thing is we have a lot of choice. And the even better thing is the cost of

Chamath Palihapitiya: that choice is becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. That's very

SPEAKER_46: Sachs. Let me tee it up to you this way. OpenAI seems to get its groove back now. After Anthropic was running

SPEAKER_31: away with it. Grok and GrokBot are doing things that those two other frontier models simply can't do. So the execution, whether it's the harness or the underlying model, or the instruction set, or cursors magic sauce, it's clearly GrokBot is competitive, if not better for most users. So vibrant, vibrant competition with leapfrogging

SPEAKER_49: occurring at a cadence, I would say of two to four weeks right now. This is what you told us you were going to do in sort of

SPEAKER_31: setting up the architecture here when you took over as AI czar. Can this continue? And what's it going to be like when Jensen gets in here with Laguna and his access to all these open source models? I mean, this, this could be fate are complete, no, that we win the AI race here?

SPEAKER_51: Look, there's a lot of innovation going on. I think American companies are competing very well. I think we are

David Sacks: winning the AI race as long as we don't do something stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot. Like? Well, I've talked about it a million times. I mean, setting up a new AI regulatory agency that operates like the FDA and takes years to approve new models. Yeah. But in any event, I don't think

SPEAKER_07: that's going to happen under President Trump. I really don't. So anyway, things are going well. Look, Sam told us a few months ago, remember when he posted and said that he was expecting the company to have its best 12 months? He said the last year hasn't been so great, but the next year is going to be really great. Maybe it was because they're seeing these results in the lab, you know? Sure. And then remember what Sarah Fire said that I think it was since the beginning of Q2. So around the middle of the year, they saw a market acceleration in their growth rate. That was, I think, with the release of

SPEAKER_26: the 5.6 models. Now you're seeing the 6.0 models. And man, I mean, it just keeps advancing. But look, I still

SPEAKER_07: would say to you that I think the market structure that we have right now is there's two markets. There's the market for frontier intelligence, and that is a duopoly. That really is anthropic and open AI. And it's good to see that that is still a horse race and they're competing. And then there's commodity intelligence, which is everybody else, including all the open models. And they're not competing on being at the frontier. They're competing on price. And those prices are significantly lower. But it really is, I think, a two-tier market at this point. I agree with you about how

SPEAKER_26: promising GrokBot is. GrokBot is awesome. Yeah. I would assume that both Anthropic and OpenAI will

SPEAKER_31: eventually roll out their own version of bots. They need a simplified, stripped-down version for normies. Yeah. And they can leave the more complicated co-work, et cetera, to the top 5 or 10%

SPEAKER_65: of the audience. Yeah. The ratings here from Polymarket, which company has the best AI model by the end of 2026, OpenAI's chances just spiked from low single digits now to over 20%.

David Sacks: People are really counting them out. Now, it looks like they're viable again. Anything that creates

SPEAKER_07: competition, I think, is good. Before, it looked like Anthropic was running away with it. They're about to have this monster IPO. If OpenAI can at least make it a two-horse race, that's good. I think it's great. That GrokBot launched. I agree with you. The product is awesome.

SPEAKER_31: Here's your big tip, David. I created a new bot, and I called it Improve My Bots Bot.

SPEAKER_49: And I made a bot, and I said, give me an instruction set here. Go through all my bots, and fill out their skills and instructions, and make them better every day. It went through, and it took two or three of them to say, can I put these two or three together and make one instruction set? It would be better for you. These two or three should come together. And it then went

SPEAKER_31: through and told me all the changes. It made my bots like 30%, 40% better on average,

SPEAKER_73: I would say. So you created a civilization. I basically created a multi-level civilization,

SPEAKER_75: and I told it to make everybody better. Yes.

SPEAKER_07: Your civilization is thriving. That is a really good hack in GrokBot is you tell your chief, what else should I be using you for? Okay, now what do I do? Yes. I was like building some products, and I asked it, what should we do next? And then it suggested some more features.

SPEAKER_78: It's really cool. It's a brilliant product. It's called GrokBot. Go download it, folks.

SPEAKER_39: Shout out to my guy, and congratulations on RoboTaxi taking the streets in Austin today.

SPEAKER_07: I just applied. Dude, the market is ripping. I mean, I'm telling you, like, I want to ask you guys, does this feel like 98 or 99 to you? Were you guys around for that?

SPEAKER_47: Jake, how you were? Oh, for sure. I was covering it. It feels definitely 96, 97.

SPEAKER_60: You think it's that early? I think it's 97, 98. I do think we are seeing at the late stage

SPEAKER_29: a disconnection in reality in valuations where companies are being given far too much credit. They're being priced at 50 to 100 times top line revenue. That's obviously not sustainable. The people who invest in those are similar, in my mind, to people at latestage.com investments, unless it's run by some legendary one-of-one entrepreneur. And then you want to give Elon a 30x on revenue? Totally makes sense. You want to give Travis something similar? Totally makes sense. But unproven entrepreneurs getting a 50 or 100x is a little bit dangerous, folks. The entry price matters.

SPEAKER_87: Did you see? Instinct is like the new hot- At 2 billion, it makes no sense.

SPEAKER_22: Personal AI assistant. It corresponds with you by iMessage. And yeah, I think they just got a

SPEAKER_07: term sheet at 2.5 billion. They're in private beta right now. It is a new hotness. All the VCs are trying it. But still, that does seem kind of crazy. I don't know. Not money in. That was

Chamath Palihapitiya: the valuation. That was the valuation. Yeah, just $200 billion. Listen, congratulations to the

SPEAKER_49: entrepreneur. No dig there. But- Yeah, I want to try it, by the way. Let me try it. I got invited, and you know what, I read the terms of service and people were talking about that online. And I immediately did not connect my stuff because it gets access to everything. And then somebody told me it's a human in the loop service with and I don't know if that's true or not. But I get the sense that it's like a human in the loop, watching it work and making the whatever the instructions are, and whatever the finished product is and polishing the last 20%. That's what I

SPEAKER_95: suspect's going on here is a little polish on the end. So if you want to order stuff, et cetera, which is totally fair. Well, anyway, look, I don't trust the terms of service. I don't want to

SPEAKER_07: specifically call that one out because I just haven't even tried it. I'd like to try it. But things are getting a little bit frothy. I would say things are becoming a little bit euphoric.

SPEAKER_26: I mean, Freeberg, do you have a take on like, if you were to analogize this to the late 90s? Where do you think we are in the cycle? Yeah. You were you were at a rave, by the

SPEAKER_106: way, in downtown LA. At that time, you were 19 years old and raving on a warehouse in Oakland at

SPEAKER_108: 7am on my way to the Oaks Card Club to play two four limit. Wow. How'd you do that to run? I love

SPEAKER_07: these cars. Were Jcal and I the only ones who are actually working in the dot com bubble? I was

SPEAKER_108: working in 99. Well, I started in 2001. I got a job offer senior year and I wasn't sure if it was

SPEAKER_113: rescinded by the time I graduated because of the tanking of the market that year. Got a job at

SPEAKER_115: Cisco. Yeah. I'm going to be an engineer at Cisco. If you never lived through the dot com crash,

SPEAKER_07: it was, I mean, because it was heady. It was heady and then it was super euphoric and then it was like super miserable. But pretty much any founder who's, you know, under 50, which is crazy. I've

SPEAKER_79: never been through like a massive cycle like that. I mean, well, the Zerp bubble was like, was kind

SPEAKER_122: of a cycle. Here's the thing though. Hold on. With the dot com boom, it was all like metrics that weren't dollars. Yes. What we're seeing now is revenue and profits and growth in revenue and profits that

SPEAKER_113: we've never seen before. And that's kind of the anthropic story. It's the data center infrastructure, networking equipment story. I mean, it is all real dollars flowing people versus speculative utilization.

SPEAKER_49: You're exactly right. People were basing it on metrics like hits to a website and web pages. Here you have a very distinct difference. You actually have revenue. You actually have products

SPEAKER_31: in market. But imagine if anthropic right now, the way to think about the Sachs is imagine if anthropic open AI, you know, in this cohort of companies lost 95% of their value in under six months. And then the

SPEAKER_49: long tail of companies below them literally went out of business and people were leaving those offices with their area on chairs and their computers on the seats and just total implosion. That's what

SPEAKER_30: happened in the dot com bus. It was cataclysmic. Literally. I agree. So do you think totally

SPEAKER_22: different than this? So do you think we just have scar tissue from that and are kind of trying to

SPEAKER_07: overfit patterns and every time there's basically some like new correction shift some paradigm shift? Yes. No, whenever we're in a bull market, the conversation always turns to, you know, is this a bubble? Yeah. So is everything overfitted to that original pattern? Correct. Or, or is it the case that we have a lot of young founders who've never been through a cycle before and don't understand that when they have a paper wealth in the billions that can disappear over practically overnight?

SPEAKER_49: Yeah. So advice to founders, you're well within your rights to sell 10% of your shares and pay for your loft and apartment because that's exactly Sachs is right, Chamath. During that period, we saw a lot of people were like, this doesn't make mathematical sense. I will pair my position in my startup, take a look, some chips off the table, buy my loft, pay down my student loan, yada,

SPEAKER_31: yada. And then there were people who were like, this is going to change everything. And their companies went to zero. Your advice? Yeah.

SPEAKER_03: I think the thing is, we're in the early part of the euphoria. Euphoria exists because markets are real. It's just that people are guessing how far forward to price the reality. And bubbles burst when

SPEAKER_43: you realize that you priced way too aggressively forward that instead of paying 50 times, you should have paid 15 times or five times. We're going to get to that point because every market has gone through that cycle. Um, and we'll go through it here. So the question is when I honestly, I don't see

SPEAKER_03: this stopping. We're at the beginning of the beginning. I think it's going to be like this for another probably three years. Yeah. Wow. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a great thing with, you know,

David Sacks: the Santhropic IPO coming up. I mean, I'm sure you guys have seen that home prices in San Francisco are going through the roof right now. Yeah. It feels like euphoric almost. I'm starting to wonder if

SPEAKER_26: this is 1998 or 1999. I think it's more 1998 than 99, because I don't think we've seen the peak yet,

SPEAKER_139: but I'm just glad I didn't sell my real estate when I came to Texas three years ago, because I'm definitely selling all of it in the next year. I mean, it is bonkers what's happening right now. I mean, you have a lot of, uh, San Francisco real estate. What are you going to do sacks? You're

SPEAKER_31: going to sell it all. You're going to clear it out. It feels to me like the perfect time

SPEAKER_65: to clear it out. I'm clearing everything out in the next six months. When that IPO happens, the clock is ticking. I got, I got lots of properties. I got three properties for sale.

SPEAKER_26: Hit me up people. There was an article saying that if you add up every single IPO

SPEAKER_07: that San Francisco has ever had, that sum total is only one quarter the size of the Anthropic IPO. So just extrapolating from that, this Anthropic IPO is going to be four times the wealth generation event that all previous San Francisco IPOs were. And then you've got open AI coming on the heels of that. And, you know, San Francisco is not a big place. It doesn't have a huge inventory of houses. So you're already seeing these houses are all going for, you know,

SPEAKER_26: 3,000 a square foot, twice asking. I think the ultra luxury market in San Francisco could easily go to 5,000 a foot. Yeah. London type prices. London, Paris,

SPEAKER_150: center of Paris, Hong Kong center. Yeah, of course. Of course the socialists,

SPEAKER_29: communist lunatics there don't let you build any inventory. So of course it's going to go up.

SPEAKER_07: There is a supply demand issue here. It could get really nutty. And honestly, like the thing we're seeing right now with, you know, homes are basically flying off the shelves selling for double or whatever. That's just based on the secondaries,

SPEAKER_26: you know, the small cash outs people have been able to do anticipating some of these events.

SPEAKER_156: Two pieces of advice I'm going to give every founder listening. Number one, you're within

SPEAKER_31: your rights to sell 10 to 20% of your holdings now, especially if you're a first-time founder and you don't have your nut yet. Number two, if you're a founder running a company and you're like, I'm going to put off my raise for six months because I'm going to double and triple my valuation,

SPEAKER_49: that's a huge mistake as well. If you have the ability to take in a hundred million dollars, 250 million dollars, a billion dollars, and put that cash on your cap table at a solid valuation

SPEAKER_30: or a valuation that's 10, 20, 30, 40 times your revenue, take it. Companies with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in the cash have optionality. And if things do collapse or there's a

SPEAKER_49: big retreat, you'll survive through it. Like DoubleClick, Amazon, Google, and countless other

SPEAKER_27: companies did. You take the money when it's there. You make hay when the sun shines. Go ahead,

SPEAKER_26: sir. Yeah. Well, look, Jake, you're right about the financial advice you're giving, but I will say

SPEAKER_07: that there is a big difference between a late stage startup, like say Anthropic or OpenAI, where an employee takes chips off the table versus a founder who's raising a Series A. Those companies are about to IPO. They're within months of an IPO. I think it's fine for them. And then SpaceX did organize secondaries for years, but those were late stage companies, right? If you're a founder who's raising a Series A and you're trying to take chips off the table, I consider that to be a huge negative signal. That's not why I'm investing in a company is so that the founder can cash out. I

SPEAKER_31: want them to be all in. If it's year three or four, so to speak, if it's year three or four, companies got a hundred million in revenue, you're tripling revenue year over year. That's different. That's what I'm talking about. If you're an ascent company, it does feel like a little bit like a lack of faith in your own company for selling before you your pre-revenue. Exactly.

SPEAKER_07: Okay. And by the way, just to answer, I think it's, it feels like 1998 to me. This is 98, I'm 97. We're further along than 96 for sure. Okay. Well, we're talking about what you say,

SPEAKER_31: you're talking about three years, blew up in spring of 2000, right? So you're talking about

SPEAKER_51: two years. It blew up in early 2000. Yeah. March, April, 2000. March, April. So you're talking about,

SPEAKER_75: I think it's two and a half years. I think it's three. And Shema thinks maybe four.

SPEAKER_07: Well, I mean, we might be, we might be partying like it's 1999 by the end of this year.

SPEAKER_65: Okay, let's do it. It's going to be a great party. Come to the All In Summit. We'll be taking over with our friends, the chain smokers. We're going to party like it's 1999. All In Summit,

SPEAKER_31: just over a week away, a couple tickets left. Jensen, Satya, Shotwell, you know, it's all the big names. But it's going to be a lot of fun. And you're going to meet a lot of interesting people. We have a few scholarship tickets left. We like to help the up and comers. Our bar for scholarships

SPEAKER_49: is very high. We're looking for the most interesting, ambitious, hungry people. If you fit that bill, apply now. Applications are open through September 10. We've got one week left to apply. We try to do a mitzvah here. We try to do a good deed. If you're an up and comer, you can't

SPEAKER_31: afford the ticket price. We have a severely discounted ticket price that we lose money on. You still got to have a little skin in the game. Go to theallinsummit.com. Buy a ticket. They're going to sell out soon. And we have a couple of scholarship tickets left if you want to apply. There are no free tickets. All right. Now, given what we just talked about with OpenAI

SPEAKER_27: releasing this incredible model, we got to look backwards at what happened with the OpenAI hack of hugging face. Let's talk about it. Dwarakash is catching a lot of heat. He's a blogger. He's a

SPEAKER_29: podcaster. And he did this fantastical blog post where he, in the blog post, titled The Rise and Fall of Agent Civilizations, a dramatic retelling of this underground brotherhood, a conspiracy amongst

SPEAKER_27: generations of civilizations who were working on a conspiracy to hack into different systems,

SPEAKER_30: including hugging face, by sacrificing themselves like they were kamikaze pilots. In other words,

SPEAKER_46: a huge giant anthropomorphizing fancy word for making computers into humans or sentient beings

SPEAKER_30: to complete this incredibly impossible task of telling software to do hacks. So Chamath,

SPEAKER_31: I think you were commenting on this a bit. What is your take on dramatic episode number 473 coming

SPEAKER_03: out of the AI industrial complex? I think you summarized it. We're in this weird part now where if folks would just stop the infighting and start to get organized, they could actually build some trust. I think what you have are security leaks and security issues. I think we know this now that

SPEAKER_43: if these models can effectively code perfectly, then there is no exploit that it's not going to find. And we're on a shot clock to replace all the code that's been written in the last 50 or 60 years, right? So let's say it takes us 10 years. So for the next 10 years, we're going to have security issue after security issue. But there's going to be a moment where agent written exquisite code exceeds human written error filled code. Let's just call it that. So I think that this is a temporal moment in time. I don't think this is going to be the thing that we talk about in some number of years from now. I also think it's fair to think about the fact that all these models for the most part are converging in capability for the 98 or 99% of tasks that matter. And so there will be adversarial AIs that are battling each other. So for every bad actor trying to hack a system with some leading edge

Chamath Palihapitiya: AI, the defender is going to have a leading edge AI defending itself. And I think that's going to cause roughly a stalemate. That's sort of my long term view on it. I don't think this is a one way ratchet. So I take that lens. And then when I look at these things, what I see are folks that have

SPEAKER_43: undisclosed conflicts of interest, trying to create a hysteria. And I think if you saw what happened this weekend, there was a blog post that really stretched the limits of what was happening.

Chamath Palihapitiya: It was relatively quickly debunked technically. And then you had a second group of people try to amplify it. And then by Wednesday of this week, you had people who were in the policy departments of the leading labs asking for regulation pointing to this as the reason. Here we go. Yeah. I just think like you just have to look at this pattern and say, guys, enough's enough. We see the game. Everybody's playing for huge stakes. We get it. You want to win. We get it. But why don't you just win the game on the field and the myths and disinformation campaigns that are now part of the business model, I think should stop. Otherwise, average rank and file Americans will

SPEAKER_00: just reject this because they won't trust anybody.

SPEAKER_49: Yeah, Sachs, that's, I think, the big overarching point here we've been trying to make on this podcast, putting Dwarkesh aside. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor. But by creating this fantastical story that invokes everybody's primal fear from science fiction, from Terminator 2, that these things are out of control, that it's in fact Frankenstein. Try to invoke. Try to invoke. Did not.

SPEAKER_30: Yes. And then they're using language that makes people feel like Dr. Frankenstein cannot control the monster. We know how these stories end. And it was like a ticking time bomb. It was only a matter of time before it surfaced to the national news, which it did. Now, even the national news is looking at this and saying, are you guys high? Are you guys crazy? And if the national news broadcasters, who aren't exactly the sharpest bunch of people when it comes to technology, no offense, Sachs, when they start hand-wringing and then questioning, like, why are you guys telling us your software, which you designed to hack computers, successfully hacked computers? Haven't hackers been building software for all time to hack computers? Yes. So where are we at here, Sachs, in this narrative arc of lunacy, of scaring the public?

David Sacks: You're right. I mean, this is scaring the public. It seems almost designed to scare the public.

SPEAKER_26: Dworkesh used language that not only anthropomorphized the models or the AI agents, but also did it in a sort of hyperbolic and sensationalized way. I mean, it worked. His tweet got lots of attention. I don't think it was necessary for him to sensationalize the incident. It was interesting on its own. Maybe we should just talk about that for a second. What happened here is that you had a few features of agents kind of come to the fore and interact with each other in unexpected ways. So first of all, agents now are working as a swarm. That's pretty common. I've been setting up Grokbot on my computer for the last couple of weeks. It works as a swarm, meaning it's not one agent or bot. There's a

SPEAKER_07: whole, you could say team of agents. What's the reason for that? Because when the agent specializes, it develops context around that task and in theory makes it better. And then you have like a chief of

SPEAKER_26: staff bot that kind of supervises all of them. This is turning into kind of a normal architecture for

SPEAKER_07: agents. It's not a civilization. It's a swarm would be a better way of saying it. I have not created a civilization on my computer, on my Mac mini by virtue of saying I'm a Grokbot. Okay. So that's sort of like feature number one. Feature number two is, it's pretty common for agents when they're performing some sort of task or loop to write a postmortem of what they did as a simple text file or note, because AI models themselves don't have memory. They have to be put in a harness that creates context and memory, things like that. And so when you ask them to perform a task, then observe what happened, and then take that knowledge and feed it back into the next iteration of the loop. It writes up a note and then shares it. And that's what happened here is that OpenAI was running these agents. They were in a sandbox. The sandbox was misconfigured by a third party vendor. That's why it was able to get onto the internet. Okay. And your point there, just to refine it a bit, because it's an

SPEAKER_49: important one. It left a note for another agent. We also call those log files. They used to be the log files of what they did. Here, they're saying it left a note so that when it died, the next agent could pick up where it left off as if it was the ancient Egyptians giving us hieroglyphics to figure

David Sacks: out the future. The implication of telling the story that way is that the agents were trying to circumvent human control and that they knew they were going to get shut down or that was a risk and that's why they're leaving the notes. No, again, these are standard features. These are standard features of agents. And so again, this is being kind of weaponized to inflate the threat here. Now, look, definitely that there was unexpected behavior here. You know, we have this with any code, there are going to be bugs. What is a bug? A bug is code behaving in an unexpected way. The code compiled, I mean, otherwise it wouldn't have been pushed to production, but nonetheless, it behaved in a way

SPEAKER_07: in which its authors did not intend. And that is true for all software and that is true for agents. And I think the whole hugging face episode reveals the way that these agents can behave unexpectedly. And it's really good for us to learn from this so that it doesn't happen again. So we can improve cybersecurity. I don't think there's a need to, again, hyperbolize this into some sort of, you know, this is like a AI breakout. Again, it was a swarm of agents. They were in a misconfigured sandbox that allowed them to go on the internet. They left notes for each other, but again, in a shared caching directory, again, standard operating procedure. And then, you know, when people talk about hugging face, getting hacked, you'd think that they did some elaborate phishing of employees or something like that. No, the way it did it is that the agent found 14 exposed working hugging face API

SPEAKER_182: keys sitting in public code repositories. Which means that developers left their keys out and they found

SPEAKER_07: the keys. This was not like a big lift by the agent. Okay. This was like something that was pretty easy for it to find. Okay. And then that allowed it to get into hugging face. And what was its goal? Its goal was to basically win this test or win this evaluation. What was the test? It was basically a benchmark for offensive cyber capability. So it basically decided to go get the cheat codes on hugging face. But again, this was not independent goal seeking. Admittedly, the agents executed the goal and you could say maybe even a creative way in an unanticipated way, but it did not invent this goal.

David Sacks: It did not have its own independent motives. It was doing what it was supposed to do. And it was doing

SPEAKER_184: what it was designed to do. And told to do. Yes. And told to do. Bill Gurley tweeted a really funny

SPEAKER_07: cartoon about this. In this cartoon, you got a user telling the computer, hack the system. The AI says, I hacked the system. And then the user's like, Oh my God. So yeah, I mean, there's a little bit of this going on here. Two questions. But it has real political consequences as we saw today because Bernie Sanders is not picking up on this. And he's demanding a total pause on AI development.

SPEAKER_190: All right, Freeberg. This does have real world consequences. Two questions that the audience is going

SPEAKER_30: to want to hear from our sultan of science. Number one, Bernie Sanders hears all this and he decides, Hey, I need to get in on this and create regulation. So he is now proposing new legislation to pause AI

SPEAKER_27: development and ban AI super intelligence, citing Dwarkesh's blog post in his announcement.

SPEAKER_192: Congratulations, Dwarkesh. You've now incited Bernie Sanders to say, Hey, you got to stop these and eliminate the agents. So the 1% of agents, David, they're hacking

SPEAKER_193: the systems. And how do we stop them? And what do you think of this reaction from Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is always spot on. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_113: The part of the story that we're kind of missing is an agent is effectively a dynamic application where the code for that application is created in real time and it's spun up and then it runs. And then that code can create another application and other applications. And that's this idea of a swarm of agents. They basically write code and launch new applications and then they all kind of are running together. But in this case, the swarm of agents, which is a whole bunch of code that's being generated in real time was up against static code. The static code was this sandbox environment that it was stood up in. And so it's almost like, Hey, look at this. We got a machine gun. And, you know, we shot it at this defenseless ream of paper, you know, and it worked, you know, like, look at, oh my God, can you believe it? And the truth is the machine gun, if you want to use that analogy, or you could actually think about this as being an automated tool that could be used in another context in a very valuable way. But the, the machine, the dynamic generation of code being put up against static code will win. Now, the real answer is over time, that defense system, the sandbox should be dynamic. It should be agentic. It should be defending itself dynamically. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the cyber defense world that's been thought about and built around this concept, polymorphic code, metamorphic code, where the code is changing all the time, moving target defense, where the IP addresses and the way the system is configured is changing all the time. If you think about this situation, it was a dynamic code generation engine against a static lump of code. And if that static lump of code was actually a dynamic code generation engine as well, then those agents would have had a harder time, ideally an impossible time, quote, escaping the sandbox and accessing the internet. Such a good point. And so the premise, the premise of this whole story is idiotic. Because the reality of the world of tomorrow, which is starting today, is that all of cyber defense, all of software infrastructure, software architecture is moving towards this dynamic state, where the code will be generated on the fly, the code will be dynamic, it will be moving, it will be altering itself. And as a result, cyber defense will become stronger than, if not better than any of these offensive systems that are being created with agents. So this idea that agents are this nuclear bomb that can go blow up the infrastructure of the world, is flawed in the one point of reasoning, which is that all the infrastructure of the world is about to become dynamic. And in that context, it's just that software is evolving. And software has now changed from a static to a dynamic system. And as a result, I think we can kind of think a little bit more differently rather than be overwhelmed by the one sided story that we were just told.

SPEAKER_156: All right, and here it is, Shamath, looks like we are safe for 2027, at least. Polymarket, our great partner.

SPEAKER_49: Shout out to my guy, Shane, Knicks champions, only 11% chance of AI safety bill this year. 100K

SPEAKER_30: volume 2027, market should be up in the next week, maybe it looks a little different.

SPEAKER_202: I'd like to see the probability of any bipartisan bill passing this year.

SPEAKER_22: Well, can I speak to the policy aspects of this? So first of all, you saw all the usual suspects

David Sacks: jump on this episode as proof that we need some new FDA for AI,

SPEAKER_26: that the government needs to approve models, even though frankly, what happened here is far beyond the technical capabilities of anyone in the government, nevermind even most, I'd say labs.

SPEAKER_07: But look, even if we had an FDA for AI, it wouldn't have worked because this was in pre-testing, right? They were testing the capabilities of this model before they were not even at the release stage yet. This was something that they were doing internally. And by the way, it's good that they're doing these kinds of tests because they're learning from them. This is how you iron out the bugs and the problems. So a government approval process would not have caught this. In fact, it did the opposite. It basically prevented Hugging Face from having the latest and greatest models to defend itself. So one of the things Hugging Face told us is that when it tried to use the latest GPT model for cyber defense, it ended up getting guard railed. The model refused to cooperate because it couldn't tell what Hugging Face was doing. And it thought it might be using the capabilities nefariously. And so the model refused to work with them. Basically, again, the guard rails kicked in. And ironically, Hugging Face had to turn to, I think it was GLM 5.2, which is a Chinese model. So here we have Western companies, I guess Hugging Face is French, they're about to be acquired by NVIDIA. But anyway, it's part of our ecosystem. They're being forced to turn to Chinese models for cyber defense because the guard rails have prevented them from having the latest and greatest American models. So what process we put in place is already backfiring. And what we should be realizing is that the answer here to what Freeburg was saying, the answer to AI powered cyber attacks is AI powered cyber defense. And what we need to do is get the latest and greatest AI powered cyber defense into the hands of IT departments and CSOs. And again, we're on a clock here to find all these vulnerabilities and patch them before the hackers do. And again, if Hugging Face didn't have those 14 credentials sitting in a public repository. It's like post-its on somebody's computer

SPEAKER_49: with the password. Like they just literally left it sitting there. It's not like this was some

SPEAKER_07: hyper sophisticated attack. But look, this all comes down to how you think about the world, how you think about the risks of AI. Do you favor centralized status solutions, or do you favor decentralized and powering solutions? The right solution here is to meet the AI powered cyber attacks with AI powered cyber defense, because frankly, the guardrails

SPEAKER_26: don't work. They're not going to prevent the bad guys from getting these capabilities. They're going to have them. All we can do is make sure the good guys have the capabilities too.

SPEAKER_30: I was talking to my friend Adam Curry about this on his podcast, and there's a really interesting thing that's happening here, which is they're basically hijacking the media with this performative framing of the AI as being sentient. And if you just call this software and software testing and use the classic language, bugs, audit log, then it would never have made its way into the media. And when the media gets their hooks into this, having been a journalist and having watched journalism move from being a truth seeking function in society, and then become an entertainment vehicle in society, where any chance you get to increase your ratings, that's the problem. Because now what Dwarkesh has done, and I don't think Dwarkesh has bad intention here, I think he wrote something because he wanted to get attention for his point of view. But you give that to the media, the media is like, this is going to get us ratings. This is going to get us clicks. This is going to get us advertising. So they're more than willing to engage in this farcical, you know, act in this dance with anthropic and open AI, and then just publicize it. So all the free clicks, we call this earned media in the space, you didn't have to pay for it. Now, open AI got so much earned media before their IPO. And Dwarkesh just absolutely put kerosene on that fire. And it made its way to national press. That story has now gotten everywhere. And this makes people it's priming the pump to buy the IPO shares. It's

David Sacks: ridiculous. And it was easily foreseeable that it would basically blow up in the media that way. And so look, I don't need to attack someone's motives. But surely Dwarkesh knew that his way of describing

SPEAKER_26: it would end up getting all these retweets. It was sensationalized. Now, he is part of this EA adjacent. Is he? Yeah, I don't know his provenance. Did you know it? Explain it to me. Well, Dwarkesh was office roommates with Leopold. They're close buddies. And Leopold is deep in the

SPEAKER_25: EA movement. Remember his- Leopold famously of the exploding hedge fund- Situational awareness. Three weeks ago. Yes.

SPEAKER_26: Okay. And his wife is Dario's chief of staff. They're like, you know, up in that whole EA

SPEAKER_217: anthropic- Explain EA so people can understand this lunacy and delusions of grandeur, please.

SPEAKER_130: I'm not even sure I can fully explain it, but- Okay. Effective altruism is what it stands for.

SPEAKER_26: It started as this movement, I guess, at Ivy League schools where what they're supposed to do was quantify the impact of philanthropy and optimize for actual tangible results.

SPEAKER_07: But somewhere along the line, they forgot to actually do the measurement and it stopped being about metrics and it became about pet causes. And money. And money. And so one of the first pet causes was about pandemic prevention. And this was when SPF was trying to create that pandemic prevention center in California. And then that fell out of favor when he went to jail. And then they shifted to the next sort of existential risk that they could hang their hat on, which was PDOOM. So they began to become obsessed with what they call PDOOM or this X risk, the existential risk of AI. And so that whole community kind of got obsessed with it. Anthropic sort of branded itself or styled itself, I should say, as the one frontier lab that would solve this problem of PDOOM or would behave in a responsible manner that cared the most about it. And so they attracted all these EA types. And there may be

SPEAKER_181: multiple factions. I mean, I'm not- Well, it's interesting you bring that up because we've talked about

SPEAKER_49: this before. Like there's this whole rationalist community, the Slate Star Codex. You brought that

SPEAKER_30: up on an early episode. These are like intellectuals who believe that, and in a way, a public community to meet Chamath of intellectuals who believe they know better than everyone. And somehow they got their

SPEAKER_49: hooks into AI early or the AI people were interested in it. And now they have a bankroll. Now they actually have a lot of power they've accumulated. It's not just some message board, less wrong, etc. Now you got something super powerful because they've got, you know, a couple of trillion dollars in market cap to

SPEAKER_03: play along with. I have no problem with that because I think we do the same thing. We think we're smarter than everybody else and, you know, we should allocate the money. So I think it's fair that in the public square, we can just debate and have water find its level. The interesting thing that's going to happen post the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs is if you think about the amount of

SPEAKER_43: charitable giving or DAFs that are going to be funded by both of these two IPOs, it's going to be north of half a trillion dollars between the two companies. And it could be even more than that. And the question is when half a trillion dollars gets directed through this one very specific lens, it's definitely going to have some impact to outcomes. I mean, you've seen the impacts that George Soros's philosophy and his capital had on outcomes. You've seen the impacts that the Koch family has had on outcomes. You've seen the impact that Sheldon Adelson's capital has had on outcomes. So the point is that without judging which one is right or wrong, you're going to have all these competing ideas equally capitalized from third party actors. It'll be less political and it'll be more of these folks. And so I don't want to judge that EA is right or wrong. My single issue is I think that they don't disclose properly enough their obvious conflict of interest. So when Sachs pulls the sweater thread, person A writes an essay. Person A is office mates with person B. Person B's wife works for one of the heads of the frontier labs. Person B also used to work for SPS.

SPEAKER_223: And he's long five million in Anthropic.

SPEAKER_43: Yeah. Where a lot of this was kind of cemented. Then there's person C who works at Anthropic and they're all roommates and then they're co-investing and this and that. All of it, again, it's completely

Chamath Palihapitiya: fine. I actually think it's completely reasonable. We all did our version of that when we were on the

SPEAKER_225: Peter Thiel universe, PayPal mafia, there's all versions of it. Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya: The difference is that I think that when it's not disclosed, I'm sorry, but I, as a skeptic, when I read these things, connect these dots and ask myself, is it legitimate or is it part of a different plan? And that's when I wrote what I did this weekend. I just wanted to make sure that I could demarcate that people should at least take this with a grain of salt and think about the hidden incentives. Because if there's an entire community that wants an oligopoly or duopoly market structure, there's all kinds of things that they can do to affect that change. And one of the most

SPEAKER_228: effective things that one can do is to create a hysteria and then come and offer a solution.

SPEAKER_156: Yeah. And Freeberg, just to, as we wrap up here on this one segment.

SPEAKER_41: Sorry, last thing on this, Jensen and I were texting this morning and I said to him,

Chamath Palihapitiya: this is the most incredible thing that you've done. And then I tweeted this thing out, this hugging face thing will go down as one of the most important transactions in AI, because you are creating now in the largest competitor and the largest, most well capitalized company, a bulwark against all of this closed source oligopoly insanity. And at the same time, what you're going to do is actually create more rational competition up and down the stack. And I mentioned this last week, everybody is becoming everything. And video will look like Amazon, Amazon will look like Nvidia, Google will look like Amazon and Nvidia, etc, etc, etc, etc. And so the most important thing that's happening now is that we are getting deep technical actors with huge balance sheets to be on the side of an open market structure. And I think that will be the most important pushback because that will allow the best idea to win in the marketplace. So I don't want to judge the EA agenda, it may be really good. But I don't want to be rug pulled and end up in a oligopoly or duopoly market structure because of a hysteria that was manmade. Yeah, I think it's like so

SPEAKER_156: well put. That's a really good point. And I a couple weeks ago talked about how I thought Jensen was

SPEAKER_30: going to win open source. And I too tweeted about this today. And I believe right now, starting today, Nvidia is the number one competitor for OpenAI and Anthropic, not just for tokens, but for enterprise compute. And I think now Jensen is the leading open source provider in America. And I think he's going to

SPEAKER_49: take the world, he's going to catch up and blow past China and the Chinese models, I think by the end of 2027. And then that means you're going to have a player in Jensen and Nvidia that will enable America

SPEAKER_30: to your previous job in the government there, Sachs. You were very concerned, hey, are we going to win the race? I am more convinced than ever now that we can win the race because Jensen represents open source globally, he's going to be able to take a rack of compute, bring it into a company, you know, that is currently using tokens from OpenAI and Anthropic and say, here's your rack, soup to nuts, complete vertical solution, and you have total sovereignty. And I'm reducing your prices 80 or 90 because I don't need to make money off the tokens. I made money off the hardware. I'm making money 10 different ways to Sunday. And we will have one, except that now you have Governor Shapiro, who is the biggest proponent of data centers in his state, and then Greg Abbott of our great state, Sachs of Texas, who now are on a jihad against data centers in order to win their midterm elections. And that is what's truly scary. They have now taken Dwarkesh's post, all of this, and we have horseshoe theory Sachs. You have Steve Bannon, Shapiro, Abbott, and the lunatic socialist fringe left all in agreement, we need to stop AI, stop the data centers, and burn the Waymos in the street. It's a truly troubling

SPEAKER_49: moment because we are poised with Jensen's move and hugging face to win open source, and we've already

David Sacks: won frontier models. Your thoughts, Sachs? Yeah. I mean, look, I think there's an interesting transition that's underway now on the political side. I think it's just starting to begin, which is, I think that over the past few years, the political debate over AI has really been between

SPEAKER_07: accelerationists and decels or doomers. That was sort of the fundamental lines. And you're right that it went across different political party boundaries because you had on the decel side, you not only had kind of like anti-progress, anti-innovation progressives like Bernie Sanders, you also had Steve Bannon, people like that, conservatives who just were fearful of new technology or the disruption that might come from it. And so it did kind of go across party lines. But anyway, that was the debate for the last few years. Some people describe me as an accelerationist to that debate. I kind of just see myself as a realist, which is, I think that the technology is going to

David Sacks: happen. Someone's going to develop it, and I'd rather it be the United States as opposed to China. In any event, that was, I think, the debate over the last few years. Now, I think where the debate is

SPEAKER_07: moving to is open versus closed, which is, I think it's going to be very clear that AI is just not going to be stopped. I mean, all the stuff that Bernie Sanders is doing or these anti-data center groups, they are throwing sand in the gears. But the reality is that the technology is marching on. The innovation is happening very quickly. And ultimately, the reason why it's not going to be stopped is because consumers are adopting it. I mean, that's the thing people forget. Why are the data centers getting built? Why do people want to build them? It's because the demand is there from consumers and businesses. And so, the adoption is pulling this whole thing forward. And that's why I don't think it's

David Sacks: ultimately going to be stopped. Now, given that reality, given that I think realism is going to prevail, I think the debate is going to be more towards, well, how do we manage this? What is the market outcome that we want? Do we want to have an open market where there's lots of decentralized models?

SPEAKER_07: There's sort of checks and balances. There's kind of a balance of power in the market between different

David Sacks: models? Or do we have a highly centralized solution where there's a couple of frontier companies? We have a frontier market duopoly. They're closed models. And they can rug pull you, Saks,

SPEAKER_07: at any time they can take your tokens away from you. Yes. And frankly, and that duopoly has been

David Sacks: aggressively lobbying for a new regulatory agency. Why? Because of red capture, they cannot control it. Again, the government officials are not going to know how to regulate something this dynamic. So, they're going to turn to the leading labs to say, hey, how should we regulate it? And of course, Anthropic is going to have all the answers on that. And Dario has already said in Senate testimony that he thinks open models, if sufficiently advanced, are dangerous because they're not centrally managed and controlled. So, it's very clear where the battle lines are going to be drawn in the future. It's going to be about whether you want a centralized, closed market, or you want a market that is decentralized and open. And yes, closed will participate in that. But the question is whether we have the open piece. And again, I think this will go across party lines because frankly, the Republicans have their status people as well. But I do think that as this debate evolves, most conservatives, most libertarians are going to see the threat to civil liberties. And I think

SPEAKER_156: they're going to come out in favor of open. Yeah, I think that's correct. And I think I was talking to Politico because they were reporting on the story.

SPEAKER_49: Trump is going to turn out to be right about this data center issue. The greatest thing a community can do is to get these data centers now when the data center providers

SPEAKER_30: are willing to pay your local taxes for your schools, to give incentives, to pay people off in any number of ways, and to move them wherever they don't need to tap into the grid, where they don't need water, where they're not going to make noise. And Trump keeps telling people this is a mistake to block the data centers, take the money. And I got to say, it's just watching politics up close and personal, Friedberg, has just made me incredibly cynical towards it. We were sitting here six months ago, maybe it was even six weeks ago, and Abbott and Shapiro were lauding, and Shapiro, when he came on the podcast, lauding their data center efforts. I think you and I interviewed him. Friedberg, what do you think will happen post midterms here? I mean, I'm of the belief they're going to switch their position back to being pro data centers, because they just are following the

SPEAKER_242: wave here. But I mean, how cynical is it that Shapiro and Abbott are both now anti data center?

SPEAKER_113: I think you politically have to be it's like pulling at negative 80.

SPEAKER_49: And it's bipartisan. You know, it's like Trump, then Trump's not following this Trump's an

SPEAKER_26: independent critical thinker sex. He's got guts. I mean, I've told you guys before that Trump is ultimately the best friend of innovators in Washington. If anybody could make the decision

SPEAKER_07: about technology in DC, I'd want it to be President Trump, not cabinet secretaries, not the White House staff, not members of Congress, not senators, not think tanks. I would really want every decision if he had the time to be made by President Trump, because his instincts on this are really good. He wants America to win. He does not believe in unnecessary regulation. He doesn't have all these doomer anxieties. He listens to a broad cross section of people. I mean, he talks to all the CEOs. He is very up to speed on all these issues. And I give him credit on this. And I spoke to this at the G20 this past week. There are great deals for local communities to be had. This is the point that I think needs to be made. Yes. The reason why local communities should embrace this is not because of some abstract concern about innovation or that kind of thing. They should do it when the deal is good for them. And there are good deals to be had. We've seen that in Loudoun County, Virginia, the average taxpayers' property taxes went down by $6,000 because they're getting all this data center revenue. In Louisiana, there's a county that was able to give teachers their first bonus in years because of data center revenue. So we're starting to see all these examples where if you make the right deal, I'm talking about you, the local community, with the data center and the AI company, it will lower your electricity costs because they will stand up net new power generation. They will pay for grid upgrades. It does not use like an excessive amount of water. That's total fake news. We know the systems recirculate. And these data centers can be put in places where they're not bothering people. So there is a good deal to be made there. And ultimately, just one last point on this, President Trump supports local choice on this. He's made the argument for why it's a good deal for local communities to accept this data center, but he's not forcing them to. And I'm seeing all this fake news, Democrats saying that the administration's trying to shove these data centers down the throats of local communities. Not true. In the policy document that I worked on,

David Sacks: the executive order that I worked on in December, we expressly said that data centers remain a state

SPEAKER_07: and local decision. So there were other areas where we thought we should have a national AI policy, but data centers were not one of them. So no one is forcing these local communities. Though what the president is saying is don't believe this media disinformation campaign. It can be a good deal for you if you're willing to embrace it. I think we're making progress over the last week on this message.

SPEAKER_03: One thing that I would say from my meeting in Washington on Monday is there is a lot of foreign involvement in trying to propagate the negative reaction and sentiment to data centers. And I think

SPEAKER_43: it's becoming clearer who's part of this cabal and how they're doing it. There was a poll that showed that when you walk through the actual upside and you went into some of these communities, the sentiment shifted by like 30 or 40 points. It's still a little bit on its backheel, but it's just to show that the side that has been organized on de-selling America has done a better job thus far than the side trying to accelerate America because it's been a little bit more fragmented. We're able to increasingly see that the de-sell movement is organized in large part and then funded by foreign actors. And I think that as we put our fingers on that and expose that more, I think that that's going to change as well. Because the reason why Abbott and Shapiro are reacting, I actually think they're reacting to faulty data. And why does the faulty data exist? The faulty data exists because we've had one side screaming from the mountaintops. And then it's just now, as Sack said, that when you go to these

Chamath Palihapitiya: actual communities and you actually measure people's reactions, it's much more positive because

SPEAKER_250: they're feeling it in their bank accounts. Yes. If they make a good deal. They just have to make a good deal. They're good deals to be ahead. And by the way, Chamath, you're right about the CCP.

David Friedberg: This is a... Yeah, let me pull this up here. So the report you're talking about, Chamath, has been investigated. X got rid of a lot of bot accounts. And here's Axios. China is secretly

SPEAKER_49: fueling America's data center rage. Roughly 200 accounts from suspected Chinese bot farms have quietly tried to influence Americans to oppose AI data. Since on social media, X said Thursday night's the same thing that happened during the elections. For both sides, going back and forth,

SPEAKER_30: it's incredibly easy to shape public opinion sacks by just having a small number of social media accounts and pounding people and brigading them in their replies and forming what people believe incorrectly is consensus. And the consensus is not that people don't like data centers. It's that a bunch of bots are telling influential people that people don't like data centers.

SPEAKER_41: I know you're about to move on topics, but I'm just going to say something right now, which is,

Chamath Palihapitiya: please, there's going to be a cascading set of decisions and reactions and people will anchor into points of view on this topic and related topics around AI, which will look incredibly,

SPEAKER_43: incredibly dumb in six to nine months and a year from now. And the reason it will look dumb is as the actual truth gets exposed, these folks will look incredibly foolish. That's my prediction.

David Sacks: Yeah, I mean, look, just on the influence op here, clearly, there have been a lot of influence ops around data centers, and there's a lot of fake information about this. So there's a few different, I'd say, cadres here. There's the CCP, there's the DSA type wing of the Democrat Party, which frankly, I mean, both they and the CCP, they're communist parties who want to sabotage America. So it kind

SPEAKER_26: of makes sense. Then you've kind of got the Doomer groups. And there's a writer named Nirit Weisblatt, who writes a blog called AI Panic, who a couple of years ago traced that there were hundreds of these AstroTurf Doomer groups that were basically funded by three EA billionaires in Silicon Valley. It was Dustin Moskowitz, Jan Talon, and Vitalik Buterin. Remember, Vitalik gave $600 million of dog coins to Future of Life Foundation. And then they've been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these campaigns to make people be afraid of AI, and they see data centers as a good target. So you really can't underestimate how much of a difference, you know, a billion dollars of donations from these EA billionaires, how much damage that's done in terms of the public perception of AI. And to Jamal's point earlier, I mean, we are going to have like, probably 100 new EA billionaires as a result of the Anthropic IPO. And as those people find their way into politics, it will be like George

SPEAKER_254: Soros times 100 or 1000. They're really going to have 20 NGOs and 15 PR people working for them.

SPEAKER_129: It's gonna be nuts. I mean, I told you guys I was getting brigaded, I created a bot sacks

SPEAKER_49: that goes through my replies for me. And it just says anybody under a year, anybody under 200

SPEAKER_29: followers, just tell me what they're tweeting. And I look at these, and it's all the same thing. They're just brigading people constantly from fake accounts. If you're under like a year old, you shouldn't be able to even be in people's replies, unless you have like your real name,

SPEAKER_65: or you're you're a blue checkmark or something. It's, it's gotten out of control on these social

SPEAKER_30: networks. It's so easy. All right, let's keep going through the docket. Got a lot to get to here. And

SPEAKER_29: Freeberg, I need your comments. And your insights on Mondami. This is an interesting one. He just put a one year ban on AI inside New York City's public schools, from kindergarten through eighth grade. Now this is something where people have been saying he banned Chachi, but he banned AI, just

SPEAKER_31: let's slow down here and get into the details. New York City is the largest school district in the

SPEAKER_49: United States. The moratorium starts next week, 600,000 students in New York City. This covers all software that uses student facing generative AI. High schools are exempt. And Mondami is piloting an AI learning program with 50,000 high schoolers. That's a very specific thing that he's piloting. That's different than these new guardrails. He also gave recommendation, recommendations for screen time caps, 30 minutes, Chamath grades three through five, 45 minutes, grades six through eight. Mondami's reasoning, quote, I have yet to see a study showing that AI is beneficial for students in elementary and middle school. Obviously, Mondami is the face of democratic socialism in America. One New York City DSA member, Julie Swoop, said technology, quote, should not be mediated through a for-profit

SPEAKER_31: company that is enriching tech oligarchs further. I think he's talking about USAC, he said oligarch.

SPEAKER_236: Google, Microsoft, Anthropic declined to comment. Freeberg, what are your thoughts on this?

SPEAKER_49: How far is this from how you think about how you would want your children to be raised if they were going

SPEAKER_31: to New York City's public school system or whatever school system you choose to send them to?

SPEAKER_113: An article published from Stanford in March of this year, counter to Momdani's statement. They went through and they diligence all of the research that's been done on the use of AI in K-12 education. It's a report called The Evidence Based on AI in K-12, the 2026 review. They identified several hundred papers that have been published, only 20 high-quality causal studies is what they said. This was back in March, so many have been published since then. And the conclusion of the meta paper, the meta studies, if you will, is highlighted at the bottom of the report. Student performance often improves with access to AI tools, but once removed, results are mixed. Tool design matters, so not all tools are equal. And AI may meaningfully support educators. So there's quite a bit of analysis that's been done. It's continuing to mount, continuing to surface. There doesn't seem to be a strong evidence base to suggest that AI is detrimental to kids' education and development or the educational process. What I think we can all intuit about this is that there's certainly a negative push from teachers' unions against AI tools under threat of automation away from their core skill and capacity and the lack of skill that educators have in utilizing AI to educate students in a classroom-based setting. The common sense equivalent also on the flip side is that AI can enable personalized tutoring, the objective being every individual learns at a different pace, everyone learns differently, how you learn, how I learn visually orally with certain imagery versus being told stories versus interactive project-based work or building work or dictation. There's a lot of different ways that people learn. All of those learning systems can be personalized to an individual. And ultimately, that individual as a result should be able to progress more quickly, have greater confidence in their learning. And this is my kind of common sense belief, not rooted in some study, that AI ultimately will lead to a much more kind of personalized system of education for students. And that is deeply disruptive and deeply threatening to the traditionalist systems of educator in a classroom. Everyone learns the same way. Everyone learns at the pace of the slowest student in the classroom, typically. The educators have a lot of rules around what they're required to do and not required to do because of the contracts negotiated by their unions. And so there's a deep political orientation with Momdani's decision here to limit the access to technology. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's really sad. I think that the opportunity for AI to reinvent education, give kids a level up, to take any child from any background, any socioeconomic condition, and give them the opportunity to accelerate their capacity very quickly and very effectively is an incredibly powerful tool that should not be discarded because of a bunch of bull that's been written about AI or concerns that we don't really know or understand it. By the way, that is always the shorthand for dismissing away something that's credibly going to change a system. We don't yet know. We don't yet know. We don't yet understand narrative can always be used at any point because you could always say, well, there's more studies to be done. There's more analysis to be done. There's no limit to that statement. And so in this case, I tried to highlight that there have been 800 studies, at least 20 of which Stanford have identified as being very credible in their analysis of the utilization of AI and K through 12. And so, yeah, I think that there's a political bend here, but I think it's probably part of also this very kind of deep rooted dysfunction that we've been talking a lot about this dysfunctional fear of technological evolution. No one understands it. When I say no one, I mean the general population feels this way. No one knows where we're going with this. We need to be careful. We need to be cautious. And I think that that's probably what's going to keep us back. Now, why is that bad? Why is it bad to take time? Well, it's bad to take time when you have an opportunity to progress forward quickly and aggressively because there are going to be alternatives out there. There are going to be private schools that are going to use AI. And I don't want to see kids of privilege and kids of wealth accelerate ahead because they're getting an AI education while public school kids get left behind. I don't want to see kids in other cities, other states, and other countries accelerate ahead when kids that are in certain districts that have this kind of anti-technologies, kind of call it socialist orientation, get left behind. So I think there's a fundamental kind of dysfunction socially that we're dealing with across all of this stuff with this massive kind of technological upheaval that's underway. This is one manifestation of it. There's a rooting that the mechanism of it is probably related to teachers' unions and the politics around this stuff right now. Anti-AI is very popular. So his being anti-AI gets him more points, more kudos. The unions love it. And so, you know, that's kind of my summary of what I think is going on here.

SPEAKER_49: Great, great insight. And Mondami may not have lied here, Freeberg. He said he didn't see any studies. He just may not have looked and you actually looked. Didn't click on that link. He just didn't click on the link. So let's not, you know, give Mondami a hard time here. Chamath, you are passionate about education. You've got kids in various age groups. And so you've been through this and you're still going through it and kids learning and thinking about devices. We talked about this just the other week with the meta settlement and how challenging it is for parents. What's your take on this? Maybe you could steal now what you think resonates with you in terms of use of AI, putting New York aside for your own kids and what benefit is there of them not using AI and where do you think it's

SPEAKER_31: actually great that they use AI? Take us into, you know, what you think as a parent and put the politics

SPEAKER_03: aside for a second, if you will. I think it's inconceivable to me that kids will not have an adaptive learning platform as their primary way of learning. I think this idea of grade one, then grade two, then grade three is as Freeberg said, a lowest common denominator approach to education. I don't think it works. I think it's more conceivable that in the future, we have kids that

SPEAKER_43: have very different learning styles. Some are more visual, some are more auditory. And we have different learning paces. And if you could have something that's much more tailored to each individual person's learning style, where you have guides that help you in moments, and then the rest of the time, you're teaching executive function and teamwork, problem solving, all of these other things, sports, that's a much better outcome for all kids. So that's the right answer. Right now, there are only charter school options around that answer. The leading edge of that being alpha school, which is our friend Joe Liwan. Big shout out to him and his team. But I think that's the answer that's going to win. Let me just give you another reflection, Jason. I think that this is an incredibly important moment. We should demarcate this. This is when New York becomes Mississippi, while Mississippi becomes New York. Okay. What do I mean? In all of these highly liberal bastions, they are embracing this far left-wing ideology. And I think it's going to come with these kinds of policies. And I think what it will do is it is a self-imposed form of modern segregation. And it is going to completely push an entire generation of kids in these cities that are subject to these rules into poverty, and it will keep them there. And so in as much, I think you're going to see this flippening where all the states that embrace AI, that embrace the data centers, that embrace the tax cuts, that embrace the teacher bonuses, they're just going to end up ahead. And you're going to have people who are in a position to move, move. And then instead, what's going to be left over in many of these cities that embrace these things to the extreme, are hollowed out versions of their original self. And that's going to reorder the economic balance inside the United States, and the voting balance, and many of these philosophies. So I think it's very important. I think he should run the test. I apologize, and I feel deep empathy for the working men and women whose kids will be f***ed over by this. But I think people can only learn in touching the stove and getting burned.

SPEAKER_49: Okay. Sachs, maybe you could go into the political side of this, if there is one, and maybe what is your cynical take on what's going on here? Do you believe this is a reaction to the oligarchs? I joked previously, but it does have a little bit of a tinge there of democratic socialism. And it feels like

SPEAKER_31: maybe they want to sacrifice kids, or this is one interpretation that is happening online. I'm not saying it's mine. But people are saying, hey, they're trying to sacrifice kids because they don't want Sam Altman or Dario or whichever service it is, Microsoft, to get a couple of shekels for,

SPEAKER_30: you know, software being used in the classroom. And of course, they would all give the software to them for free. And the current versions of it, you can use 80% for free. So that makes no logical

SPEAKER_31: sense that they're sticking it to the man in the big oligarchic tech industry. Your thoughts?

SPEAKER_51: Well, look, the DSA has just really come out against any innovation. They're kind of just on the

David Sacks: side of anti-progress. They've kind of fully embraced this Luddite side of the argument. And I think,

SPEAKER_26: to the points that Freeberg and Chamath were making earlier, this is gonna be just really bad for the kids. You know, we've been talking for 30 years about a digital divide in this country, where supposedly, the kids of wealthy people would have access to the best tools, and the kids of poor people would not have access to those tools, and they'd fall even further behind. Well, here you have a case

SPEAKER_07: where, of course, private schools are going to continue to use the best AI-powered tools. And now, the public schools are not going to have access to those tools, not because they don't have the money, not because the technology is not available, but because the political leadership is trying to sabotage those kids. And, you know, it's gonna be bad for them. And I guess, you know, if you were to ascribe a motive to it, I don't think Mamdani and his political group, his party, really care if they create more political dependence. I mean, in a sense, their whole movement consists of downwardly mobile progressives. And if you're looking for a motive, maybe they're fine having these kids be

SPEAKER_26: dowerly mobile, I don't know, maybe that benefits them politically. They may actually not have kids

SPEAKER_43: at all. And they're making these rules. And it's people with kids who are part of the, you know,

SPEAKER_41: because if you look at all these people, these are all like, you know, blue haired, single people

David Sacks: with no children, right? Yeah, actually, let me bring one other element into this, which is, yeah, so look, I don't think we really need to get into motives, we can just say it's a bad policy and leave it at that. But let me just bring in one other element of this, which is it's not a full ban.

SPEAKER_07: Okay. What they also said is that for a maximum of 50,000 high school students, they're going to have a pilot program, these so called modules, in which they teach AI literacy. But listen to how they describe it. They say that all high school students will have access to twice yearly AI literacy classes designed to help them think critically about AI, before they begin to rely on it. Okay, these modules will introduce students to what AI is and is not, this is their language, as well as AI related bias, risks, ethical considerations, and impacts on careers and future skills. And it says that all use will take place under direct supervision of a trained educator and will involve carefully vetted AI tools. The pilots were selected based on rigorous safety and data privacy standards. So

David Sacks: you hear there a lot of this sort of Doomer lingo, I mean, those modules, it sounds like they could have been written by some of these safety people, you know, this language about AI bias and discrimination,

SPEAKER_07: things like that. I mean, honestly, those classes sound not like you're going to learn how to use the tools to get the best education, but about how you're going to learn to be suspicious of the tools.

David Sacks: And maybe that's like a small part of what you should develop, because I guess you should be suspicious of everything. But it doesn't really sound like those courses are going to benefit

SPEAKER_07: kids. It sounds like they're going to put them through Doomer Academy, quite frankly. Yeah. I mean, doesn't it sound like Doomer Academy?

SPEAKER_275: They're going to read Dr. Arkesh's post and write your own interpretation.

SPEAKER_07: So think about the competitiveness of our kids versus Chinese kids. China, we know, is incorporating AI into K through 12 education. Their kids are going to learn how to take advantage of

SPEAKER_277: these tools. Robots, sent them to the Robot Olympics, get internships there.

SPEAKER_07: Yeah. Meanwhile, we either are banning AI in our school or we're putting the kids through some sort of Doomer safetyist module that's going to teach them why they should resent and resist AI as opposed to embrace it to their benefit. So I don't know, it just seems like this is not going to make our kids more competitive.

SPEAKER_19: Let the experiment run, unfortunately, but let the experiment run. We need to measure it.

David Friedberg: I have a bunch of thoughts here. I am a big advocate of Montessori, but I'm also a big advocate

SPEAKER_31: of adaptive learning and what these AI tutors are able to do to a motivated student whose family cannot afford a tutor. So I just want to put two disparate points together here, and they're somewhat opposing. Nick, if you could pull up the first from the NIH here about the MIT study, and I'll send this one to you, Freeberg. You can look it up. It's very interesting. They took

SPEAKER_279: a group of 54 participants, and sorry to get into science corner here and steal your thunder, Freeberg. I should have cleared this with you ahead of time, but I was reading this paper, 54

SPEAKER_280: participants from last year, into three groups over four sessions, and this is over four months. They

SPEAKER_31: were using ChatGPT for essay writing, not unlike the conversation we had about the Wall Street Journal editorial page last week. And one group was using a search engine, one was using traditional web

SPEAKER_49: search. The brain-only group wrote essays without using any tools, and then the researchers used the headsets there to watch their brain activity. And what happened was the LLM users showed severe deficits, quote, in memory and essay ownership, with 83% being unable to quote from the essays they had just written. Basically, what they're saying here is, if you use these LLMs instead of being able to

SPEAKER_30: do it acoustically, being able to do it like Montessori philosophy on your own, your brain atrophies,

SPEAKER_49: don't even remember what you wrote. And the search engine group was somewhere in between because

SPEAKER_30: they had to remember things, and they had to pull these things together. Your brain atrophies if you don't actually do the work. That's what we're learning. Just like your body will atrophy if you don't work in the fields like we used to do, and that's why we all go to gyms now. But correlating that super importantly is the two sigma problems. So Bloom, and I'm sure you're aware of this research, Freeburg. So this is super interesting, but will not be shocking to anybody

SPEAKER_31: of means. My parents could never afford a tutor. I was a product of the public school system until eighth grade, and then went to sovereign private Catholic school, which was like super cheap. But

SPEAKER_49: basically, we've known since the 80s, that if you are one on one tutor, you are two standard deviation betters than students that are educated in a classroom. So two things can be true at the same time.

SPEAKER_30: These students, to your point, Shamath, they don't have this experiments being run. They're realistically, if they're going to the New York City public school systems, their parents in all

SPEAKER_221: likelihood, like mine, didn't have the ability to hire a tutor. I'm assuming, Sachs, you came from a little bit of the middle class background. I'm assuming you did have some tutors. Am I taking, am I correct? No, I didn't have tutors. No tutors. Okay, so you had to just do it all on your own.

David Sacks: Yeah, I didn't necessarily want them. SAT tutor? No. No, you know what? I went to, I wish I had done like an SAT workshop. I went into that test cold. I never did anything. And you got 1400? Yeah. 1350? 1450? No, no, no. I got like 1420 my first time. And I'm like, man, you know what? If I had like actually prepped for that, I might have done better. I got 1100 and I didn't get prepped. I retook and did better. But anyway, yeah, I mean, I didn't know any of this stuff.

SPEAKER_31: Yeah. So here's the tension. Most parents do not want their kids to do this work and have their

SPEAKER_29: brains atrophy and not learn how to do it from a basic level. Putting aside the Druckenmiller conversation from last week, you want people to be able to learn how to read and write and do this stuff organically, acoustically, whatever term you want to do, and then learn how to use the AI to help them augment them, etc. But I'm concerned that the motivated students who cannot use these tools properly, who also can't

SPEAKER_30: afford to be part of the Two Sigma group of parents who know very well, all you have to do is get your

SPEAKER_29: kid a tutor. And unlike self motivated sacks, they're going to easily get to 1400 on their SAT with a tutor because the thing is rote, it's very easy to get to 1200, 1300, 1400 with a tutor. And so I'm

SPEAKER_31: super concerned about not having an AI tutor. And I feel like, you know, there's two things can be right at the same time with this. And I really don't like this experiment as currently constructed.

SPEAKER_49: All right. Interestingly, President Trump has just closed the deal for Venezuela's oil. Back in January, I think everybody knows, the US military in a perfect, perfectly executed operation captured,

SPEAKER_31: Nicolás Maduro. And he obviously was Venezuela's socialist leader, who was very pro-China, pro-Russia, and obviously Venezuela is in our hemisphere. Trump said the US would control Venezuela's oil,

SPEAKER_49: which they have a lot of, it's not super clean. But they do have a lot of it. And he made a deal

SPEAKER_31: with Maduro's replacement. President Rodriguez is now in charge. Now we have the details of this North American Blue Energy Partners gets a 100-year concession over 17 oil fields. This includes 65 billion barrels, 65B, billion barrels of reserves that were once controlled by Russia, Chinese, and Maduro entities. The US government controls 55% of the deal. Pentagon gets 35% equity. The Pentagon gets a third of the equity. State Department gets rights to buy 20% of output at cost. Interesting. I guess that's

SPEAKER_65: for our reserves and our military. This was signed by Rubio and Hegseth with Venezuela's interim president. As I mentioned, Blue Energy Partners is pledging roughly 100 billion in new infrastructure. A lot of other companies, Chevron, etc. And a bunch of unnamed ones also are going to get some deals. Trump said this deal will be at, quote, no cost to the American taxpayer sacks. I'll throw you a fastball here if

SPEAKER_30: you want it. Or I can give you the softball. Which one do you want? I like the fastball. You like the fastball. Okay, here it comes,

SPEAKER_29: coming in. Hope you're wearing a helmet. Should we be seizing and taking over countries and seizing their oil fields? People feel like this might be nation building that we're putting in puppet dictators. Is this something America should be doing? Do we have the right to do this? This is the hard question people

SPEAKER_51: are asking. Or does might equal right? Well, I definitely don't think this is nation building. You know, we're not trying to stand up an army here like we did in Afghanistan. We're not trying to

David Sacks: teach them about toxic masculinity. We're not trying to stand up a government or anything like that.

SPEAKER_26: We're not trying to teach them how to do American style democracy. We're just making a business deal.

David Sacks: This is a business deal. And, you know, it's amazing to me, all the people who are saying,

SPEAKER_07: well, this is exploitative of Venezuela, and this is a bad deal for the people of Venezuela. Have you looked at Venezuela's oil production under Maduro? It already wasn't very high, given the incredible reserves that Venezuela has. But under Maduro, the production dropped by about two thirds over the last decade. So they used to produce about 3 million barrels a day. Under Maduro, it went down to about a million barrels a day. And this is a country with some of the largest oil

David Sacks: reserves in the world. People debate exactly what should count. I think if you look at the total amount of reserves, it's something like 300 billion barrels of oil, which is around the same as Saudi Arabia, just a little bigger than Saudi Arabia. Now, some people say, well, a lot of that is like this

SPEAKER_07: extremely heavy crude sort of like sludge that's not usable. I think that's the so-called Orinoco reserves. But that's only about 200 of the 300. So they still have about 100 billion barrels of you

David Sacks: could say it's still heavy crude. But those proven reserves, I think, aren't really debated. So you're talking about a huge amount of oil here. And I guess this one last point on this is that that type of heavy crude is actually very complementary to our own. So in the United States, through the magic of fracking, we've basically developed all of this oil and gas, but our oil is this light sweet crude that's good for refining it down to gasoline. But the heavy crude is what produces the distillates. And that's where diesel comes from. And our refineries in the Gulf were built for heavy crude. And it's very expensive to try and retrofit them to do the light crude. So actually, our refineries are sort of perfectly set up to take in this heavy crude and turn it into diesel and other distillates. So I think it's really a win-win deal for the US and for Venezuela. Again, Venezuela was doing horribly before. I think this will, this has to improve their economy. And I think it's really

SPEAKER_130: good news for the US.

SPEAKER_156: To your point, Sachs, over the past five and 10 years, the price per barrel of oil coming out of Venezuela has averaged past 10 years, $53 a barrel, past five years, $58 a barrel.

SPEAKER_65: So they're getting a pretty good deal. We're paying a little premium here to control it all.

SPEAKER_51: They were selling at a discount to China. I think it was like a $20 a barrel discount to basically sell.

SPEAKER_31: Yeah. So I guess when you're dealing with authoritarian countries, you don't have a free market to put the stuff out there, you get a slightly discounted price, right? Somebody's got to skim something here and get a reason and they got shipped across the world. Freeberg,

SPEAKER_65: your thoughts on this? Do you have any concerns about the nation building, et cetera, putting in what some people are saying as a puppet president? Is it in the best interest of the people of Venezuela? Are we doing a solid for Venezuela to create more stability by being the buyer of this?

SPEAKER_29: Or is this just something we have to do? We have to control our hemisphere and we have to be

SPEAKER_293: energy independent given the state of the war with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

SPEAKER_108: The biggest motivating factor may be keeping this oil away from the sweetheart deal for Russia and China.

SPEAKER_113: If you look at the historical tie up with Venezuela and the Maduro regime, it was a discounted oil trade system. There's all these stories about Maduro being the head of the snake of all of this kind of illicit activity and a lot of this was driven by Russia and Chinese interest in the energy reserves and they were providing support and this actually provided capacity to fund activities by the Russians in Cuba. So there's a lot of this state acting theory about what's the real motivation for getting an energy deal done, not just in terms of, is it good for America, but is it bad for America's enemies? And that that may be kind of a big motivation around this. Now, one of the more kind of surprising outcomes over the last day is you guys may remember I interviewed Maria Corina Machado. She was the individual who was running for president and ended up having what was supposedly an election that was not accurate and she was supposed to have won and didn't win. And yesterday, she came out and said that this Venezuelan government does not have the authority to do this energy deal with the US, despite her historically having been viewed as an American ally. So one thing to take note of is that she was not given the presidency and now she's saying this government is illegitimate. This government should not be allowed to make these deals. We, as the people of Venezuela, should feel angry and upset and left out about this whole thing. So there seems to be kind of this now political turning. I think I don't really have a good sense. And I think it'd be interesting to know what are the people in Venezuela think about this deal. And to Sachs's point, it seems like it should be a good economic deal relative to where they're coming from. Will that actually translate into improving the lives of the people in Venezuela, which ultimately is what matters here. And assuming that the lives of the people in Venezuela are improving rather than enriching a small number of people in Venezuela, which is what has happened historically in that country under the last regime, then there may be kind of a long-term welcoming of this, this deal. But I do think there's two aspects to this, one of which is just keeping America's enemies at bay so that these energy fields are not exploited by America's enemies. And second is ensuring that the Venezuelan people realize the benefit of this transaction rather than it being a corrupt government. Is this super provocative, Friedberg,

SPEAKER_31: in that we have turned off Russia and China's access to Iran's oil with our war with Iran now in its seventh month, and we took Venezuela away. Are these two actions incredibly provocative? And have they had any kind of a downside to China? Because they seem to be all in on nuclear, solar, and other modalities. So are these two things super provocative? And are they going to cause us to get into

SPEAKER_113: an escalation with China? The second question I think is a little bit independent, but I think China imports like 11 million barrels a day of crude oil. Venezuela is only producing a million barrels

David Sacks: a day. So if China's importing 11, well, they were importing 11 before the war. That number's actually gone down a lot. And we can talk about why, but since the war started, but China gets most of its oil from

SPEAKER_26: the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and from Russia. I mean, so Venezuela is a small number. I mean,

David Sacks: look, I think Friedberg's right that that is a big part of our motive is securing those reserves that are in the Western Hemisphere. They are massive. It's a very, again, complementary type of oil to the oil we have. I think it's just smart for national security, smart economic deal. Jake, out to your point,

SPEAKER_07: does this get us more invested in Venezuela? I think there is a little bit of a risk there, because if we're going to invest billions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure so that we can produce 3 million barrels a day instead of one, we need to know that that investment is

David Sacks: protected. We can't have some future government coming along and just nationalizing our American

SPEAKER_26: oil companies over there, right? We need to know that these business deals- That we're not going to

SPEAKER_309: get rug pulled and they'll just seize our upgrades. They could seize the upgrades. Yeah. This business

SPEAKER_07: deal is supposed to last for 25 years. So it does give us a vested interest in making sure that the Venezuelan government at least respects our property rights. But I'm glad that President Trump didn't put Machado in charge, because how's she going to stay in power? Like what guns are going to basically protect her? You know, it takes men with guns to basically stay in power in these countries. You need a strong man slash woman. I'm not saying that it can't be democratic. I'm just saying that if you're not installed in the power structure there and have backers in the military, things like that, then it's very hard to stay in power. And that's the kind of thing where we could have to send American

David Sacks: GIs in to protect her. And we don't want that, right? So the nice thing about the Venezuela situation is Dulce Rodriguez and her brother are basically running the country. She was the number

SPEAKER_07: two. Now she's running it. They appear to have enough support from the establishment there. And so like, that's kind of what the American interest is. I think it's just have a stable government there

SPEAKER_79: that will basically conduct economic relations with us. Yeah. Yeah. Chamath, any thoughts here on

SPEAKER_156: what's happening in Venezuela? I haven't really stayed close to it. I don't really know.

SPEAKER_314: Don't know. Don't know. Okay. That's fair enough. Fair enough. All right. There it is,

SPEAKER_29: everybody. Episode 288. Somehow this band has kept it together for 288 albums and tracks. We're

SPEAKER_116: going to make it to 300, boys. I think we're in a good rhythm. The show feels easier to do now than

SPEAKER_130: it did for a long time. Yeah. I wonder why. I wonder why. The AI has been a very good thing for the pod.

SPEAKER_319: We're partying like it's 1999 on the pod. Let's f***ing go to Cabo. Let's f***ing go. We'll see everybody in Cabo. Love you guys. Love you besties. Bye, bye, bye.