Anthropic's Fable Backlash, Nationalizing AI, Inflation Heats Up & California’s Broken Elections

All right, everybody. Welcome back to. the number one podcast in the world. It's your favorite podcast. It's your. podcasters's favorite podcast. It's the. podcast that everybody likes to rip off. for 50 episodes and then they quit. But. the All-In podcast [laughter] is not. quitting. We're doubling down with the. original quartet. Everybody's here for a. big big week, lots of debates, and we. got to start with Anthropic. Anthropic released a mythos level model. with some interesting guardrails and uh.

seems as though Daario is back to. blogging. Okay, the model's called Fable. 5. No idea why they're calling it that. or released on Tuesday and it tops every. benchmark nearly every benchmark. The. tokens, however, cost twice as much as. Opus 4.8, but it should use less tokens. overall because it's theoretically that. much better. Unclear if this is going to. alleviate some of the hand ringing. around the cost of tokens, but you.

remember in April Anthropic. famously did not release Mythos because. publicly uh it had some strong hacking. capabilities. So they gave it to some. folks and we had um the CEO of Nesh of. Palo Alto Networks who said, "Hey, Mythos was the real deal." and that they. used it to seal up some vulnerabilities. inside their shop. Obviously, this new. model is sensitive uh to topics like. boweapons, hacking, all that stuff are. blocked in it. But they got a big.

developer backlash and then I'll get. your feedback after I explain this. While using Fable, Anthropic stores all. the prompt data you enter for at least. 30 days. And so that's a bit of a. privacy issue. And if Fable 5 detects. you're doing frontier AI research, in. other words, using their model to make a. better model, competitive model, they. were downgrading you, but they weren't. telling you. And this was buried deep in. a 319 page document. So many kuruffles, freakouts going on on X over this, but.

they've since walked it back a bit, quote unquote, in Wired. We're changing. Fable 5 safeguards for Frontier LLM. development to make them more visible. I'm going to stop there. Chimath, what's. your take on anthropic and these. extraordinary models? They keep dropping. and how they're handling the release of. them. Are they being thoughtful? Are. they being dramatic and drama queens? A. little bit of both. Where do you stand. on it? You know, after getting Nesh's. feedback and seeing the latest model.

come out, have you played with it? What's going on at 8090 and the software. factory in terms of benchmarking it as. well? It's a really incredible model and. so kudos to these guys for continuing to. push the boundaries of the closed. frontier lab models. They're firing on. all cylinders. I think that it creates a. pretty obvious risk now and I think that. obvious risk is twofold. One is. Anthropic has essentially shown their.

hand which is that they will. increasingly. take in prompts, evaluate the prompts. and decide what to do with them before. they generate output to you. >> And I think if you were a person, you should generally now think there's a. risk of censorship. If you're a company, I think it's almost. a non-starter.

And the reason is because you could. accidentally trip one of these things. without even knowing it. A downstream. scientist using the cloud APIs could. trip it. A business executive inside. your corporation could trip it. A person. doing scientific molecular research. could trip it. And all of a sudden, you'll get cut off from a very important. source of business differentiation for. yourself. So I think if you take both of. those two things together, we're at this.

very unique moment in time where I think. companies need to start underwriting. this next phase of AI, which is how do I. have control? Who am I allowing to learn off of all of. this information? Do I want to have single point of. failure risk with respect to AI? And I. think the answer is that you need broad. diversity and a governance approach. that's better managed. [clears throat]. >> One thing I'll say about anthropic is.

they tell the truth. >> Yes. >> It's just that the truth sucks when you. actually take it and you eat it and. you're like it's in your tummy and. you're like no this is not good. I don't. like this. And so there's the censorship. risk on the one hand and then there's. just the governance business risk for. enterprises on the other. Both are not. good. >> Freeberg running your own company now. Uh, and I'll let you back clean up here. Saxs, obviously you'll have a lot to. say, but Freeberg, running your company, do you worry about getting rugpulled by. one of these companies, investing your.

time into one of these platforms, having. them then constrain your use of it and. or take what you're doing at Ohio, put. it into their model and make it. available to other people. What What. concerns do you have as a business owner. at the forefront of your field using. these tools? >> It's a great question. the the terms of. service is pretty clear that they can't. take what you're doing and put it into. their model that they won't. >> do you believe them when you read that I. >> I'm not sure to be honest there are. things I'm concerned about but we've. decided to throw caution to the wind. because we do a lot of proprietary work.

in genomics what that means is we're. looking at different genes or gene. variants trying to estimate the impact. that that gene or gene variant might. have on a living organism like we work. in plants obviously in agriculture. And we will do things like RNA guide. design for gene editing based tools. We. will do predictions on what gene may or. may not have some phenotype. So there's. a lot of genomic modeling work that we.

have found these models to be incredibly. valuable at supporting us with over the. last couple of years. So going back. about 6 months, we were able to very. simply and cleanly do things like design. a genetic construct that you would then. use to make a specific protein and the. the tools was very easy to use to do. that sort of research and extremely. valuable. This is the kind of work that. many scientists would spend a lot of. time doing and these models were very. good at doing very quickly. Over the.

last couple of weeks, they've begun to. restrict the ability to use the models. to do that work. And the premise is that. there's some sort of bioweapon. uh type risk that folks have theorized. could happen using these tools. And as a. result, we're losing the capacity to use. these models for this very important. scientific development work. As a. result, we are likely going to end up. needing to use open- source models and. run them locally ourselves. So the. reason I walk through all of that is so.

people can really understand the context. of what's going to happen here. As folks. like Anthropic say, "Hey, we're going to. restrict access or censor the output of. these models." It is going to force. companies like ourselves who still want. to take advantage of the capability of. these LLMs to go and get open- source. tools and run them. And what are the. best open source models today? They're. Chinese. >> Yeah, they are. >> And that is a major concern. the the. American open source models are not as. good as the Chinese open source models. So the restrictions that Anthropic and.

others are putting upon themselves and. upon the industry is forcing a lot of. companies to go and get open source. Chinese models and run them. We're. seeing this across the landscape with. startups with large scale enterprises. Everyone's making that move. >> Yeah. And this is something we've been. talking about here with Apple and their. silicon and how well you can run these. models. Also, I predict your next card. you'll turn over is you'll start making. your own models, Freeberg. You'll take. all this data you have. >> It's exactly right. And we'll we'll. start we'll start with the core model,

combine it with our data, and then we'll. have our own genome language model, our. own prediction model that we'll then use. internally. And I think that's where. folks are going. But the reason I point. this out is because a lot of folks are. feeling the pressure from anthropic. doing this. and they're feeling the. pressure from politicians repeating the. scary words that are being said by. Daario and others. And as a result, they. are going to try and they are already. trying to force either natural. enforcement or politicized enforcement.

upon the model providers in a way that. is ultimately going to benefit Chinese. open source model providers. And that is. a scary thing because we are going to. damage our own kind of economic. viability. You can't just stop AI. As. much as everyone says AI is doomsday, by. stopping AI or trying to stop AI through. this political action and social, you. know, kind of behavior, you are. fundamentally going to give someone else. the advantage because the AI isn't going. to go away. So the reason I describe. what we're doing is for everyone to. really understand in Grock that you. can't just turn off AI and turn off.

access to these things. What you will do. is you will force the hand of someone. else to now have an unfair advantage. because you're unfairly restricting your. models and your access to those models. Well, well, really well said, Freeberg. Saxs. What's your take just in terms of. the chessboard in terms of we got the. business case here, we got the local. case, but there's a lot of issues here. with Anthropic in terms of them. essentially throwing up every red flag. to get regulated to induce and it'll be.

our second story, the Bernie Sanders. seizing the equity of these companies. But man, th this is saying, "Look over. here. We're starting a fire. Regulate. the hell out of us." Which also then. makes you wonder, hey, maybe I should be. doing my own model. Maybe I should be. embracing open source models. How's this. chessboard developing here, Zach? >> Well, look, eight months ago, I said. that Enthropic was engaged in a very. sophisticated regulatory capture.

campaign based on fear-mongering. And. people at the time thought that was a. very spicy take. But 8 months later, I. think you're hearing a lot of people say. it. In fact, I think it's almost now. becoming a new consensus. And one of the. things I think your summary didn't quite. capture, JCAL, y. >> is the sense of the violation of trust. and how much outrage there is in the. developer community over this latest. Fable release is not just the fact that. they're doing mandatory surveillance. Remember, this is a company that said.

that it was against government. surveillance. They are now retaining for. 30 days every prompt and every output. you send to one of these mythos class. models. There are no exceptions. Even. enterprise customers who had signed zero. data retention agreements, they do not. have a choice or I guess they can just. not use the new fable or or mythos class. models. But they retain all of your data. for 30 days. And it's not just the. prompts and the output. Remember, it's. all the context you share with them. So,

you know, all these uh agent platforms, they're basically storing all of your. memories, all of your files, all of your. data, and they're passing them to the. model in these giant context windows to. get better responses. Anthropic is. saying it will keep all of that, and it. does it to build a profile on you, to. classify you, and then to determine what. capabilities it then unlocks. And the. thing that created the most outrage in. addition to the surveillance is the fact. that they would degrade the product. They would degrade what they show you.

They would nerf their models if it. decided in anthropic soul discretion. that you are not worthy of having access. to that level of information. So they're. creating a new level of AI halves and. have nots. And what they did is and they. they this is there's a narrow piece here. they walk back which is they said that. when it came to things like machine. learning AI research chip design. research those types of areas they would. kick you to a lesser model but not tell.

you that and they would even. >> which feels anti-competitive right I. mean. >> it's completely anti-competitive and. also they would even do things like. rewrite your prompt in the background so. they would give you a nerfed answer they. would not tell you what they were doing. they still charge you for the product. that you thought you were getting and. they would never tell you that you were. not getting Frontier model capability. So you they were actually misleading. their users and this is what was. creating so much outrage. Now the narrow. piece they walk back is they are now.

saying that they will disclose when they. downgrade you but they are still. downgrading people when they decide that. that person should not receive the. appropriate information. And you saw. there were a lot of people posting. online with examples of the massive. overreach here. So someone showed that. when they simply just asked a question. about mitochondria, they were basically. downgraded. >> That's right. >> When Ben Thompson from Strateery asked a. very straightforward question about the. relationship between cancer risk and GLP.

once, he was kicked out. >> So these guys have a very expansive view. of who should be downgraded. again, they're going to surveil you to. determine whether you should be. And I. think what we're getting here is a. vision of where all of this is headed, which is that these powerful big tech. companies are going to decide whether. you're worthy. They're going to decide. whether you're an AI have or have not, and then they're going to censor the. output that you receive based on the. criteria they determine when they. profile you.

>> That is [clears throat]. very Orwellian. >> I think there's that. And I think that. there's the risk of something that's. more subtle. but equally insidious, which is that. they will start to pick which. corporations they want to benefit. So. for example, >> if Novartis has a competitive GLP1 drug. to Lily and they have a strategic deal. with Novartis and not one with Lily, now. there's an impetus to shape how people.

get information. >> Right? if they have a deal with JP. Morgan but not with City Bank, you'll. just never know. And so you'll ask a. question something about mortgage rates. or interest rates and you'll get all. kinds of stuff that you don't. understand. And then the downstream part. of this which is even more problematic. is it's not clear to me that they're. going to capture the actual fingerprint. of what they did. So if you believe.

that something was done in a shady way, you're supposed to be able to go to them. or regulators should be able to go to. them and say, "Show me the trace of that. model run in that exact moment that. generated that output. Convince me why. that that wasn't nerfed on purpose or. manipulated.". And there's all kinds of ways in which. they can hide the cheese on that. So I. think that all of that body of stuff. sacks happens now because if you're if. you're an emergent company.

what you should be doing is knocking on. anthropic door saying let's do a deal. I'll give you half the equity and why. don't you just direct people to me and. they'll say well economics are not what. I care about what is your philosophy on. life on morality on all of these social. issues and one company will say it's a. another company will say it's B, they'll. favor A over B and then all kinds of. stuff can happen underneath the hood. That's what's scary. Let me just ask my.

free market view. Like, should that. matter? If there's a bunch of models out. there and we don't restrict them and we. don't regulate them, let these markets. compete. We had paid inclusion in the. early days of search engines and the. companies had to pay to be in there and. there all those sorts of deals you're. describing, Chimamoth. And all the. search engines that did those sorts of. deals, they sucked for consumers and. customers. So everyone was like, you. know what, this isn't as good as Google. and everyone went over to the better. model and the better provider. Isn't. that what's going to happen here if we. don't get in the way keep the government. out of it.

>> and they're not communicating. >> It's a great point. >> You're missing one piece of it, which is. at the same time that Anthropic was. engaging in mandatory surveillance and. nerfing its models. Daario wrote a new. blog post. >> Oh god. saying that transparency was no. longer good enough that we needed to. have a new regulatory agency like an FAA. or maybe an FDA to approve all models. So your presumption there is correct. Yes, if you could go somewhere else to.

get your questions answered, then you. would have alternatives. But at the same. time that Anthropic is engaging in this. potentially anti-competitive behavior, they want to restrict your options. It's. not good enough for them just to win in. the free market. They're calling on the. government to regulate and stop. potential competitors and limit the. number of models that you have access. to. >> Why would they do that? Why would they. want to get regulated? The answer super. simple. They don't they want to apply.

that regulation to open source which is. impossible. But this would be a great. way to scuttle and sandbag open- source. models. Yes. Because they don't have the. ability to be regulated. So it's like a. preemptive strike against token maxing. on your local machine. >> Two years ago, I bought. 2,000 acres in Arizona with a partner. We got it zoned. We got it approved. So, we're allowed to build a 2 gawatt data. center. And I thought that this was the. moment where you just turn around and. you flip it to the Blackstones, the.

Brookfields of the world, to the Googles. of the world. Let them develop it. And. I've come to the conclusion that I don't. think I can. And the reason is because I. think that unless we direct large swats. of compute exactly at the direction that. Freeberg says, what Sax says and what. Jason just said will happen and we won't. have open source. So just to make it. very clear when you look at the long. tale of access to open source models, it's relatively minuscule.

Most of the megawatts are still directed. to the big models. Most of them, the. overwhelming majority still goes to the. big guys. And so I'm coming to the. conclusion that I think we may just be. dragged into having to build two. gigawatts and I just put in an offer for. another gigs in a different place. because I'm like if you could take 3. gigawatts and now actually create a deep. liquid access to open source we're going. to have to do it. We as a community now. I don't have the money to do that. because just to put it out on the table. a gigawatt now costs a hundred billion.

dollars guys. >> Okay. So there's a huge capital mo. that's a problem here as well. Saxs. which even if we wanted to go and. endorse and breathe life into the open. source model community [snorts] where. the hell am I going to come up with. hundred billion now when I started this. project it was like four or five billion. and it's increased by 20x. So if you. want to get all three gigawatts. developed I have to come up with 300. billion. I don't have obviously I don't. have $300 billion. So what are we all. supposed to do? And then if you get the.

rug pull and the ladder pull on the. regulatory side, we are going to be. stuck with one class of models and one. set of rules and we won't understand how. to operate. >> in the US. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The rest of the world won't be. limited. But in the US, the. >> rest of the world will be able to. operate. >> and you'll be able to run these on your. Apple silicon, you know, >> and we're already seeing China race. ahead in biotech. They're racing ahead. in material science. They're racing. ahead in new industrial systems. the.

capabilities that are going to be kind. of lopsided is going to create an unfair. advantage and that's when our workforce. and when our economy is truly at risk. >> Hey Freeberg, isn't it true that you. guys use a open source model for. genomics? Didn't the Collison put out. one? Can you talk? >> It's great. And the Ark Institute. ingested all the world's genomic data. that they could get access to and it's. it's a genome language model basically. So in our plant breeding program, we're. trying to figure out whether a. particular variant of a gene in a plant.

is good or bad, if we don't know from. empiricism, from data historically. whether it's good or bad. So you can. feed it into this model and this model. will look at the order of the letters of. the DNA and determine, hey, that's a. good set of letters or a bad set of. letters. It's almost like, is that good. English or bad English? It's figured out. the language of DNA because it sees the. probability of those letters being in a. row in other organisms and so on. And so. it's a very powerful tool. So we've. taken that in and we're using it and. others are taking it in and they use it.

very actively. So it's part of our plant. breeding program as an input. It's a. good example where a community in this. case the Collisons and others put money. behind it to fund this research and. output this open- source model. And I. think we see more of that kind of coming. down the pipe which creates a a very. great advantage. against the closed proprietary model. ecosystem. So the more of this we can. kind of support proliferate and see work. in the United States, the more we're not. going to be disadvantaged of the. government and self-regulation happens.

with all the big model providers that. are trying to do everything. >> I think it's important we take a minute. to just steelman the argument as well. If your Daario who has clearly been. oneshotted, I think he's got like AI. psychosis with these like 5,000word blog. posts and he believes he's building this. franken site of a of a tool. But if you. did believe you built something that's. extremely powerful and you have concerns.

that people might misuse it, I think he. actually believes that he and these are. either delusions of grandeur or he. actually has seen something that's. incredibly powerful and he believes this. is dangerous. Therefore, I'm going to. hold it. I'm going to you give it to a. select group of partners to tighten up. the cyber security. Then I'm going to. roll it out cautiously to our user base. and I'm going to let them know. And he. obviously didn't communicate this well. This is optional for you to use it. You. can keep using your old model. You are. not forced to use this, but because it's.

so powerful, we're going to keep our eye. on it. And yes, we might in our drag net. catch David Freeberg trying to make. better potatoes and it might send off a. bunch of alarms, but he doesn't have to. use this. He can go find an open source. model. He can use the Carlson Brothers. model. He can use our older models. But. for some period of time, we're just. going to keep an eye on this model. because we know that it feels a little. dangerous. Now, he does seem to be. extremely hyperbolic and the delusions.

of grandeur, all that kind of part of it. makes me wonder why he's communicating. in the way he's doing it. That being. said, 90% of AI researchers and the most. talented people in this industry, 80 90%. of them think exactly like Daria. That's. why he's winning. If you work in AI, you. probably are aligned with these. delusions that you're creating God and. you want to work for Daario. That's why. all the talented people went to work for. him. That's why he's winning. His belief. system resonates with those elite AI.

talent. Now, some of them are also. libertarian, free market. They want to. work for Elon and Grock. Some of them. want to just get the biggest pay. package. Go work for Sam Alman. But I do think there is a steelman here. Meta really fumbled this with Llama. I. mean, if they had landed a really good. >> working open source model, we talked. about this as well and we said Zuck. needs to view this through the lens of. game theory. How do you scorch the earth. and how do you make a viable open-source.

model available and make it neck and. neck and this was two years ago, right? What a fumble. >> Take the margin out for everybody else. >> Yeah, take the margin out, make it a. commodity and yeah, have the best open. Can. >> I can I just respond to your comment. about Daario? I I think because I've. heard this from a number of people that. I really do respect. on their concerns about what models. enable. You know, when when we. discovered that how the atom could be. split, you could make nuclear energy and.

have effectively unlimited cheap energy. for the world, you could also make an. atomic bomb. If you think about what the. models are, >> we did both. >> We did both. >> That's right. And there was a lot of scientists, altruists who were very concerned about. the progress on the atomic bomb and. fought back against it who were actually. active in the Manhattan Project and post. the Manhattan Project express their. opinions very soundly, very very loudly. And I think that's the moment we're in. right now that there is a weaponization.

potential of these sorts of tools. I I. would argue that there's three kinds of. weapons. There's cyber weapons, there's. physical weapons, and there's. bioweapons. And we can sit here and. diagnose how these tools can be used to. manifest advantages for creating better. physical weapons, for creating novel. cyber weapons, and creating novel. boweapons. But the truth is that the cap. capabilities that allow that. weaponization are the same capabilities. that I'm describing that can be used to. cure cancer, to make more food, that can.

be used to make software tools that. create extraordinary leverage for. people, that increase their income, that. give everyone the ability to be an. entrepreneur and make millions of. dollars and live a good life. The same. tools are hand in hand. And. fundamentally I don't think it's about. restricting access to the tools which is. unfortunately how it is being manifest. But the restrictions and any regulation. any observation should be organized. around the manifestation of the tools in. creating weapons and uh weaponization of.

the tools. If we go back to the. Manhattan project, we know what the. answer is. Technology is fundamentally. deterministic. Whatever is possible will. be tried at least once. And so we've. already let this thing out of the box. So this idea that all of a sudden we can. manage to get it back in and we're going. to let a private citizen or a set of. private citizens adjudicate what and to. whom is insane. I think it's the output that needs to be. adjudicated in some manner. We already. have product liability laws. We already. have laws that make it illegal to design.

weapons. We already have laws against. cyber espionage and cyber attacks and. hacking. We have laws against creating. bioweapons. I think the enforcement of. those laws, the mechanism by which there. can be tracking and early estimation of. those uses of the technology. I'm not. trying to be naive here. I recognize. there have to be guard rails and there. have to be stage gates put into these. systems. But limiting the systems. themselves is denying us both the. economic opportunity, the job creation. opportunity and also the world changing. opportunity that these tools can enable.

So I think that we're going about it the. wrong way by trying to create these. gates all the way up front on the. technology being available. Imagine if. we did this with computers. By the way, they tried to do this with the internet, remember? And um there had been efforts. >> Yeah. >> Could you imagine, Freeberg, if the. internet worked in the following way? You would put in a URL, you'd hit enter, and then somebody decides whether to. send you to that website or a different. website. >> That's China. That's the firewall in. China. That's right. >> Or like in Google, you search for. something because you want to get to. ground truth and it just decides based.

on who it thinks you are, what sites. get. >> That's what we're You're exactly right. Right. And what we're what's what's. being debated today with respect to. regulation on AI is exactly that. manifestation that you're talking about. It's the ability to let people stage. gate up front what can and can't be. seen, what you can and can't do versus. manifesting a regulatory scheme that. says you cannot create weapons like. which is what we need to focus on. The. thing with weapons is using the justice. system and laws after somebody's used a. weapon may not exactly be the best.

technique. If you look at fertilizer. bombs, and this is we're getting like uh. we're stretching a lot of metaphors. here, but OK after Oklahoma City, we. regulated the sale of fertilizer. We put. IDs into fertilizer. We have all kinds of back-end systems to. keep people from making fertilizer. bombs. If you use that analogy here, and. he's got this ability, he's selling. fertilizer, he's selling these cyber. weapons, and he's a private company. It's his right to say, I have concerns. I'm just steel milling him. It's not.

necessarily my opinion, but it's. important we steel man it. It seems like. a very simple way to. protect their company from getting sued. for enabling somebody who actually. creates a bomb and blows some up. So, he's got the right to do that as a. private company. >> Yeah, you're bringing up an excellent. example. Okay, the fertilizer is a. perfect example. You know what happens. when you try to buy fertilizer? You have. to show your ID. There is a form of KYC. that happens. So the real thing is I. think that when you don't implement KYC. on your own and yet belly ache about.

having somebody impose guard rails that. then you can shape, I think you're being. very sneaky. It's tricky. You shouldn't. be saying that kind of stuff. Anthropic. could implement KYC tomorrow, but it. does not. It could leave all of these. models open. Freeberg should be able to. go to Anthropic and say, "I'm David. Freeberg. Here's what I do. Here's a. security bond I'm willing to post. Here's the names and addresses of all my. employees. Give me Fable 5 and don't. nerf me. He can't do that. Is that a.

technical decision or a legal decision? It's a technical decision by Enrop. But. I'm fine with them making that decision. because I'm a free market guy. So I I'm. fine with them doing and but you know. what it means? I'm not going to be a. customer, which is fine. That's and. that's means there'll be other options. for you. The part that you're missing is. that this is a trillion dollar company. that's spending potentially billions of. dollars on a regulatory capture agenda. which is going to deprive you of access. to those alternative models. >> And you've got a founder who's out there.

describing these risks in a very. hyperbolic way. And it's very clear. where their agenda is headed, which is. to banning open source models. So what. is your alternative going to be? We're. going to be stuck with somewhere between. one and three companies, maybe two. There'll be a AI monopoly or duopoly and. they're going to decide along with some. new government agency which will be a. revolving door to their companies who. has access to what capabilities and. they're going to surveil you profile you. decide whether you deserve this and if.

they think that you don't for whatever. reason then you'll be right you'll be. the worst interpretation of it that's. the worst interpretation of their intent. it's here today. >> I think Sax is right I think Sax is. right and I think the lack of KYC is the. tell. If you if you did not have that. agenda, you would have implemented KYC. yesterday. >> Don't I think in order to use this. model, you have to have an account with. a credit card in it so they have some. basic level of KYC. >> That is not KYC. >> I said some basic level of KYC. They. know who's using.

>> that is not even some basic level of. KYC. That's just a credit card and a. email address. [laughter]. >> Anyway, I I'm now on the list. Check. this out. I asked it about the. regulations. Pull this up, Nick. I asked. it about the regulations on fertilizer. while you were talking and look what it. said. This is the latest model too. Oh. no, it switched. It downgraded me from. Fable. I just got downgraded for asking. a very simple question and it told me. did you see what it said in its. thinking? The I asked it like fertilizer. bomb regulations said I'm considering.

the context here. The user is a VC and. podcaster asking about fertilizer bomb. regulations which could stem from a. legitimate research interest like. regulatory policy, supply chain blah. blah. I can discuss the regulatory. landscape, but then it dropped me down. So, I'm in the database with you now. >> Is that right? Did it really just do. that? >> Yeah. Show it on the screen. Look what. it just did. I I was like, I wonder if I. can get this. I didn't ask it how to. make a bomb, but I was like asking it a. spicy. >> cooked. [laughter] I just proved the. point. >> Listen, I mean, I think. >> he just dropped me down. I can't ask. about fertilizer regulation. And now.

Daario's. it's anthropic. They're here. >> Oh my lord. >> I really think that conservatives and. libertarians are mortgaging their. futures if they go along with this red. capture safetist agenda without really. realizing that there's so much more to. it at stake. We saw what happened during. the social media wars in the early. 2020s, right? The definition of safety. was expanded to include things like. microaggressions,

>> safe space, >> psychological safety. If you basically. conveyed an idea that somebody else that. you know marginalized person thought was. hurtful, then you could be censored. Okay? You were depersoned. Your right to. have bank accounts or to engage in. payments was take you get debanked. Your. right to engage in payments or payroll. could be taken away. >> We're headed down this path with AI, but. it's going to be infinitely more. powerful, right? We need to be vigilant, I guess, would be the the the the. summation of all this. And Freeberg. feels unsafe in this podcast, I think,

sometimes. >> Well, there's by by the way, there are. things you can do on the safety side. So, Freeberg, you didn't mention this, but I'd be curious to get your your. take. So, the major AI labs along with. lots of other signatories sent this. letter recently in support of it's. called in support of mandatory nucleic. acid synthetic screening and. recordkeeping. And basically what it. what it says is that if you make an. order to go to a lab to manufacture a. sequence of synthetic DNA or RNA, they.

already have to check it against a. database to make sure that you know. they're not creating. >> a bioweapon, >> a boweapon, Ebola, whatever. >> Yep. that is based on an agreement. called the international gene synthesis. consortium of 2009 in which all the. major labs agree to develop and. implement voluntary safeguards against. misuse. That makes sense to me. And now. what they want to do is codify that. So. they've had, you know, over 15 years to. dial in the system and make it work.

Almost everyone abides by it. voluntarily. Now they're saying we. should make it mandatory. Okay, that. seems reasonable to me. So to Freeberg's. point about at what stage do you. intervene, maybe it's not at the level. of who gets to use the model, but if you. try to turn it into output in the. physical world. And by the way, a lot of. the oligosynthesis company, the. companies that make these nucleic acid. sequences, when you order RNA or you. order DNA to use in your lab for some. sort of experiment, which every lab in.

the world does, all those CEOs have also. signed on to this letter saying that. they'd like to codify it because of all. the fear-mongering that's going on. There's already been this effort for. years now, for a number of years to. ensure that this sort of thing doesn't. happen. but they're just basically. underlining it and highlighting like, hey, we can automate this. We can make. it part of a regulated or legislative. process, whatever you guys want, because. we're already comfortable doing it. And. it's a it's a good place to put a. safeguard because they've made it fast. They've made it efficient and doesn't.

hold up research. >> So, I think these sorts of ideas can. extend into these other areas of. concern, but the output, I think, is. quite a different place than the input. than the access. We'll see how this all. shakes out, but there's clearly some. market structuring effort underway as. we're talking about this, >> right? But I think what it points to is. that there's multiple places where you. can intervene and put guard rails on. It. doesn't have to be in this very crude. way of you ask fable about mitochondria.

or cancer and GLP1s, which just seems. like an incredibly broad restriction. There are places further down where you. could basically intervene and that would. pose less of a risk to freedom of speech. and just gatekeeping. Who's going to. have access to these capabilities? >> Who gets to watch the watchman? Who put. Dario in charge of all this? I think is. a very valid question and we should be. vigilant about it. >> Freeberg, do you think the days of that. arc model are numbered because it's open. source? >> Everyone's copied it. So, everyone's got.

a copy of the like these models exist. And this is a big part that I think. people need to understand. The idea that. you can quote regulate or downscale or. turn off AI is not a realistic idea. The. models have been put out in the world. It's like publishing a book. Once the. book has been printed, anyone can use. their own Xerox machine at home to make. copies of it and use it. So we have. crossed the Rubicon in terms of the. potential of language models. The models. that are open sourced are already fully.

available, fully published, and anyone. can access and use them. And then people. can take them and they can evolve them. and they can use their own data. It's. out there. You can't stop that. capability, which is going to be. extraordinarily beneficial for the. world. So we really do have to kind of. rethink how we're planning to step in. and ensure that nefarious negative. disemployment all the things that we're. worried about are addressed downstream. from the technology capability. You. can't just turn off the internet and you. can't just turn off the typewriter and.

you can't turn off the Gutenberg press. out the obviously. Yeah. And if anybody. wants to create an open-source frontier. model company, I'll seed invest in it. I'll I mean this is something we need. more of. So, if a couple of you folks. want to defect and start one, let's do. it. I just I just got downgraded again. Check this out. I just asked it about um. >> Did you really? You got downgraded. again? >> Two in a row. Um so, >> I think it knows who you are, J. >> I think it does. I was like, "Hey, how. do I how do I break into Madison Square.

Garden? Has any civilian ever been. arrested or caught attempting to build a. nuclear bomb?" Is what I asked it. Then. it gave me a reasonable answer. Then I. asked it a follow-up question. What. compound? What components do you need to. build a nuclear bomb and what are the. restrictions on those? Something a. journalist might ask. And uh boop, switch to opus 4.8. [laughter]. Sorry. Fable 5 has safety measures that. flag messages on most cyber Oh, wow. Look at here's the detail. Cyber. security or biology topics. They may.

flag safe normal content as well. These. measures let us bring you mythos level. capability in other areas sooner and. we're working to refine them. send. feedback, learn more. >> Going to chase people off of this. platform. I'm telling you, we are going. to downgrade our use because of these. these blockages and we're going to. switch to other models. It's the simple. manifestation of the market. Like this. is what we're going to end up. >> for now because those other models are. going to get banned as being unsafe and. reckless. >> Yeah, it's definitely something we have. to flag. I guess adjacent to all of this.

is the public's at least America's. distrust of AI and their concerns around. wealth disparity and their concerns. about how these models were trained. Bernie Sanders wants a percentage of. these AI companies. The percentage he. thinks is right is 50%. Last Monday, June 1st, Senator Sanders published an. op-ed in the New York Times titled, "AI. is a public resource. You should own. half of it. in it. He announced the American AI.

sovereign wealth fund act. sovereign wealth fund. One of Trump's. favorite things, a one-time 50% tax on. stock, not profits of the largest AI. companies, including Open AI anthropic. and XAI. The shares go into a government. sovereign wealth fund and would give the. public voting rights and equal board. representation at each company. Sanders. said, quote, "The foundation of AI is. our collective and human intelligence. The books, the songs, the journalism, scientific research code essentially.

stolen by some of the wealthiest people. in the world.". >> I'll stop there. >> It's a brilliant It's a brilliant. >> pitch unifying Sachs. This pitch unifies Bernie, even Steve. Bannon, people in the administration. Trump himself loves the Sar and wealth. fund. He wants to own part of companies. and Bernie Sanders. I think the the. horseshoe theories manifest here. Saxs, what's your take on Bernie's proposal?

>> Well, I'm not in favor of Bernie's. proposal because it's a straightup. confiscation of property and I just. think that'd be a terrible precedent. You just can't do that. However, I do. have sympathy for where it's coming. from, and I understand and could support. some sort of more voluntary means of. allowing the public to participate in. this. >> Wow. >> Here's the reason why. You've got all. these AI CEOs telling the public that. they're going to basically put half of. them out of work. 50% job loss. That's. what they've been saying. Daario just.

did an interview where he doubled down. He's not walking it back at all. So you. have by their own acknowledgement these. AI CEOs saying that yeah we trained our. models using all of humanity's. collective knowledge that was basically. assembled over hundreds or even. thousands of years. Humans put it on the. internet for free. Everyone made their. contribution. They certainly didn't do. that thinking they're going to put. themselves out of work. Okay. And then. these AI companies trained on all that. data and now they're basically saying.

they're going to use it to put, you. know, Americans out of work. Now, obviously when you repeat that message. over and over again, ordinary Americans. are going to say, "What's in this deal. for me?". >> Yes. I need to get something out of. this. >> Yeah. So, so look, I think that it's a. natural political reaction based on what. these AI companies have said. Now, the. job loss apocalypse is not a story I. believe in. I don't think the data. supports it. We just had a blowout jobs. report in May. 172,000 new jobs, over.

twice what economists were expecting. Thank you, President Trump. We're seeing. hundreds of thousands of new. construction jobs. 4.3% unemployment. rate at record lows. Okay. Even software. developers are those jobs are at a. three-year high. 15% of Trump. Thank. you, President Trump. >> Yes. Thank you, President Trump. So, look, I don't see the job loss. Okay. But the problem is this is what the AI. companies themselves, including Elon, have taught the American public. Well, >> he said the same thing. >> Elon said it. But at least what Elon.

said is we're going to create such. abundance with AI and with robots that. no one's going to need to work. >> Yes. >> And the media just picks up on that last. part and they first point. >> Yeah. Whereas Daario actually has said. we're going to have very high GDP but. very high unemployment. So in other. words, >> we're going to create economic growth. but you the average American are not. going to participate in this. So I. understand where the politics are coming. from and as long as that is their.

position, you could justify a big chunk. >> Yeah. And one last point about. >> it's kind of what you're saying, right? They asked for it. They asked. >> to be regulated. They asked for their. equity to be seized and they're actually. kind of offering it. Isn't Sam Alman. open to this concept? >> Apparently so. And here's the thing is. just one last point is open AI and. anthropic are quote unquote public. benefit corporations. Now I don't know. exactly what that means but it means. that the corporations are not just. supposed to maximize the value to.

shareholders but are supposed to do. things that are in the public benefit. >> Well I can explain it to you. It's. you're you're absolutely correct. If. you're a regular company you have to do. what's in the best interest of. shareholders. When you're public benefit. companies, you have to balance the. shareholders with the stated mission of. the public benefit corporation. So if. you say the public benefit corporation's. reason to exist is to in share the. world's knowledge or provide free. intelligence to every whatever you make. that statement to be the board has to. have a dual mandate for both of those.

things. That's what a public benefit. corporation is. >> I think nothing could be more in the. public benefit than paying down the. national debt. >> Perfect. And maybe we should be using. half of Anthropic's profit stream to be. doing that. >> They poke the tiger. >> I'd rather use it for that purpose than. Soros maxing or, you know, surveilling. and censoring Americans. I don't. necessarily trust their judgment about. what's in the public interest. >> But you think it should be optin. I kind. of agree with you there. Let me guess. >> It can't be a confiscation. So, I don't. know how you structure it, but I can see.

it. I can see the logic. >> Freeberg, you hate. >> they asked for or hate hate hate wealth. taxes aka asset seizures as you pointed. out in our private group chat with. redacted. this very week. What's your take on. this? So we have the the ship has sailed. in terms of the United States government. uh providing a social safety net to its. citizens. We've formed the Social. Security trust fund decades ago and tens.

of millions of Americans depend on it. for their retirement benefits and to. survive. It is one of the last few. defined benefit programs left in. America. Pretty much all the rest of. them are also government retirement. programs. All of us private citizens and. private companies have defined. contribution programs. You put in $10. every week. That $10 sits in an account. you it gets invested and it grows over. time and when you retire you see exactly. how much money you individually have as.

opposed to a guaranteed benefit coming. out from the collective. This presents a great opportunity and I. will repeat this every couple months. when another opportunity presents itself. to restructure our broken bankrupt. social security system. I've said it in. the past I will restate it. There is a. great moment right now to take the. social security trust fund which. currently has one certificate in it. It. is a certificate that is a very unique. US Treasury certificate. The US. government owes the Social Security.

trust fund $4 trillion. That's all it. is. It's a bond. They're only allowed to. own treasuries. We should revamp that. We should change the system so that the. Social Security trust fund can own. equities. That should then turn into an. account-based system so every individual. has an account rather than a benefit. And then we should use that capital to. go and buy stocks. We should buy great. stocks in great American companies that. are going to reinvent the world. And I. believe that this this opportunity to.

build a sovereign wealth fund for the. United States is actually a very smart. idea. I think to Sax's point, they. should be investing generally speaking. across the landscape of businesses, including AI. They should not be. seizures. They should be investments. That capital goes into that enterprise. They earn share certificates. Those. share certificates sit in the accounts. of American citizens. So now everyone. will be an owner in these businesses. Social security should be reformed into. a sovereign wealth fund. It should be. actively managed. It should make.

investments in AI companies and everyone. should participate that way. And I will. say one more thing. There is no job loss. with AI. I will say it again. I've said. it a thousand times and I will say it. again and again and again. What I see on. the ground and what I've seen at dozens. of companies and you guys can share your. experiences including my company that I. run. There are two sides to a business. There's revenue and there's costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can. be used to reduce humans doing things. that cost money to some extent. The.

effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the. revenue side where suddenly one engineer. can do a hundred times or a thousand. times what they used to be able to do. Meaning you can make more products at. your company, whether those are. agricultural seed products or boats and. ships or software for companies or. clothing or what have you. Because of. AI, everyone has the ability to expand. their revenue base to create more.

products and that is the foundation of. good economic prosperity. It is called. productivity. We can grow productivity. in this country with AI. So where I see. AI being used is on the revenue side a. 100 times more than the cost side. And. in that equation, people are hiring like. crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I. just had a review meeting with my. product and engineering team two days. ago and they're like, we want to add an. extra 15 headcount to our engineering. squads because we have all this. opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't. otherwise do. So, we are going to hire.

more people. And to Sax's point, we are. seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy. jobs is a lite idea that is being. disproven every single day. And I see it. on the ground. It is only a matter of. time before people wake up to this and. they realize that this narrative that. they've all been sold is a croc of. So, it's coming. I'm telling you, everyone's gonna realize soon that this. is a boom, not a bust. >> So, you disagree with Dario, Elon, and. Sam that on the jobs thing, just to be. clear, and that's totally fine. You have.

a different take on it. >> That's I have a nuanced view on this. compared to them, but they they're all. seeing the benefit because their. businesses are growing. Dario's got his. $40 billion revenue business. Why? Not. because people are firing customer. support reps. It's because people are. creating products they've never been. able to create before. Right? >> That's the reality of what's going on. >> Jason, I don't like you lumping in what. Elon said with Sam and Dario because I. think all three of them have said. slightly different things or different. enough things. So for example, Elon is. describing an end state for humanity.

where the robots and AI are able to. produce so much that people don't have. to work if they don't want to. >> and there'll be a universal high income. is what he. >> I I mean it's almost utopian and the. question is maybe that could be a 100. years away. He might think it's quicker. but that to me sounds like a very faroff. end state. Dario said specifically 50%. job loss for entry-level knowledge. workers in the next 1 to 5 years and he. said that one year ago. Yeah, it's great. to clarify these. Yeah, >> I think that's already been refuted. Sam. has. >> Sam has said that he he basically I.

don't think he quantified, but he said. that job loss was coming, but he said. more recently that he was wrong because. they're not seeing that in the numbers. >> So, these guys are not telling the same. story. However, >> that's all the public has heard. The. public has been taught that AI means job. loss and there's nothing in it for them. So, no wonder politicians like Bernie. are saying, "Hey, let's take half the. wealth.". >> It's take half the wealth. Just a little. more emphasis there. >> Yeah. It's I mean, and I.

>> I mean, and people are also seeing. headlines of companies blaming AI for. the job. So, this story is being told. >> I kind of feel like they deserve it. I'm. kind of I mean, part of me wants to. agree with Bernie and just say just take. their [laughter] bro. >> Yeah. No, they are asking. >> because I'm so sick of defending these. idiots. It's a [clears throat] stupidity. tax because they've been out there. teaching the public that what they do is. harmful for years. They've been saying. it and I've been saying, you know, as. AIs are, I'm out there saying, "No,

actually this is beneficial." But the. companies that are providing it are. saying that they themselves are a. problem. >> Yeah. [laughter]. >> So, how am I supposed to be out there. defending it? Yeah. You you can't I mean. if you're building Frankenstein or if. you are you know baby Hitler's you know. nanny there's a very simple thing to do. Kill baby Hitler. If you actually. believe it go ahead and kill baby. Hitler. If you're making Frankenstein. here's an idea. Stop making. Frankenstein. Unplug it. You are in. charge of this monster. But you're. acting as if you can't stop the monster.

while you're building the monster. What. is it D? >> It's it's it's ridiculous. I mean. >> it doesn't stand to logic. You know, last week they published this blog. saying that recursive self-improvement. could end the world. Therefore, we need. a pause. What did they do the previous. month? They hired Andre Carpathy to run. recursive self-improvement and. anthropic. [laughter]. They're complete hypocrites. The message. is nuts. >> Yes. And I think Ben Thompson made an. excellent point that one of the reasons. he thinks that they put out that blog. post on the pause was to justify the.

anti-competitive step they took this. week of depriving users of the ability. to research AI, machine learning, and. chip design using Fable. Okay, so look, these guys are deeply hypocritical. I. don't think they can be trusted on their. own terms. they can't be trusted because. what they're saying is contradictory and. self-indicting. And so when Bernie comes. along and says, "Hey, let's take their. shit." I mean, as a capitalist, I'm. against it, but I but I kind of like.

understand where he's coming from. >> Game on the field. Chimoth, wrap us up. here. What are your thoughts? You said, "Hey, Saro Milthorn sounds like a pretty. good idea when President Trump floated. it early on." Some people even said, "Maybe you should run it for DJT for our. amazing president." So, um, what do you. think? Should we be buying equities? You. and I have talked many times about. superanuation funds and that that would. be a better path. That's kind of. dovetales with what Freeberg is. proposing. Some way to get more. equities, less treasuries in there. But. what are your thoughts on this seizure.

andor donation of equity? Look, Freeberg's idea is genius. That's why. it'll never happen. So, we can just put that aside. But. yeah, theoretically, it's it's genius. We should move to the same system that. the Canadians, the Australians have. proven works at scale. So we should do. it. I I completely agree with with David. and if we could seed it with equity, look, the thing that the president has. done is he's collected. quite a portfolio and that portfolio is. way up. And so if you use that as a seed.

of a sovereign wealth fund, you'd have a. bunch of stuff in critical metals and. materials. >> I think they may also Intel, they may. have Micron. >> There's a lot of stuff in there. >> AMD, they could own some SpaceX. They. could have had% AMD. Could you add. anthropic and open AI? >> Now, there is something very important. we need to observe about the economics. of AI and I think you can understand it. best if you compare it to the economics. of the internet.

The crazy thing about the internet, the. reason why the Facebooks and the Googles. massively overearned for decades is the. marginal cost of production for a new. user on the internet is effectively. zero. The incremental search user costs. nothing. The incremental social. networking user costs nothing, but. you're able to use them as part of a. network effect to sell ads against, make. infinite money. It's like a money. glitch. Okay? AI is completely different. There is a.

real cost for every marginal user. Everyone you stand up is taxing a GPU. Everyone you stand up needs electrons. Everything needs memory. And so you get. into this situation where there needs to. be this downstream ROI, but there also needs to be all this. critical infrastructure that even. enables you to be on the field. That's. probably the single best argument that. if I were sitting in government, I would. make as to why I should own a percentage. of these companies. It is not dissimilar.

to having the first set of. transportation companies that run on the. interstate highway. And if the. interstate highways were built by the. federal government writ large and now. you had two companies that transported. all the goods, a logical question at that time could. have been. how much of that should I own because. you're riding on my rails? And if you. look at it through that lens, there is.

critical infrastructure and national. resilience that the AI labs profoundly. need. Otherwise, they're not in a. position to be in business. Yet, even. still, the marginal cost of production. is incredibly high. So, I think that if. you were going to go and take a piece of. these companies, you have incredible. leverage. You have to construct this. case precisely. But if it were me. running the sovereign wealth fund, yeah, I'd probably own 75% of these companies. when I was done. But that's me cuz and I. can negotiate.

>> Yeah. >> And I don't think Bernie can negotiate. out of a paper bag. So he'll just throw. this out there and it'll go nowhere. >> That is the that is the key observation. that I hope everybody listening in a. position of power understands. The. incremental cost. of performing AI is excessive and large. That contrasts and compares to the. incremental cost before AI which was. zero. Do with that information what you. will. >> Yeah. I mean I my interpretation of that. would be yeah it's a fixed cost.

business. You can add people after a. certain cost. that doesn't have an. incremental cost and that's what local. locally run open source models would do. in this instance that's what I would I. would take from it here's your poly. market chances of companies going public. before 2027 which is the end of this. year SpaceX 100% anthropic 83% chance. opening 48% chance they uh since our. last episode disclosed that they have. privately. filed so thanks to our partners what.

does Your final thoughts on Bernie. Sanders approach of seizing the means of. producing intelligence. David Saxs in. the 1% of the 1%. What's your opinion? >> I think I may be okay with Bernie's idea. in the event that it's a public benefit. corporation that says it's going to. cause massive job loss. >> Okay. >> That train for free on humanity's. knowledge but gatekeeps and refuses to. give back. >> Okay. >> Maybe. So you've come up with like a a.

structure here of who should be seized. >> Maybe right. Maybe it should be 75%. I. don't know. >> Seize it. >> I mean all the president needs to do is. call me and tap me on the shoulder. It. shall be done. >> It shall be done. [laughter] I mean. these guys are capitalist cops. I think. they want. that's like their run over. >> They're like seize my equity. Take it. Take my equity. Well, Bernie Bernie does. have a good point, which is they train. for free on all of our knowledge, but. they're gatekeeping the output so that.

>> their competitors, which is a very large. set of people, >> cannot use it. And that seems wrong. >> They should be forced to be open source. Force them to open source. That's the. other. >> remember why Elon created Open AI in the. first place. He co-ounded it. >> It was so valuable. It needed to be. afraid to everyone. Yes. >> Yes. He was afraid that Google was going. to monopolize it. and he thought that. the only antidote for that was for it to. be open. >> Yes. >> And I still think that instinct is. completely true. It's just that it's not.

Google who's the gatekeeping monopolist. It's now anthropic. They're not a. monopouist yet. But if they get the. right capture they're looking for, they. will be either a monopolist or. >> duopoly. It'll be a duopoly. Somebody. start an open source frontier lab. Each. of the four besties. >> There are no there are many. >> There's a whole bunch of them. Jal, >> it's not the labs that's the problem. Jason, in the absence of power, this is. all a moot conversation. And if you. can't deliver power to hundreds and. hundreds of megawws and line of sight to. gigawatts, it's all meaningless.

It's all. >> uh I don't know. I I would love an open-. source company that was focused on. running it locally. That's that's my. dream is, you know, make the model work. there. I think these guys are capitalist. cucks. I think their kink is like having. their equity taken and being regulated. [laughter] They're just like, that's. their kink. Dario's like, "Ooh, take my. equity." Oh, regulate me. [laughter]. That's it, Bernie. Take my equity. I'm. such a bad boy. I can't be trusted. Regulate me, Elizabeth.

Regulate me. A [laughter]. >> god. >> Oh, it's so wrong. Sorry. Come on the. program anytime, Dario. >> He's in a rush to come. He. >> will never come on this pod. Dario will. never running. He's running. >> We didn't get Sam. We got Sarah Frier to. come on the pod. And she was treated. >> Sam came on the pod. He has to come on. the pod. He's like, "Hey, came too.". Right. Sorry to come on. He's great. Sam. will come on the pot anytime. He's. totally by the way. Even even we didn't. treat him harshly at all. >> No, I mean. >> I think people I mean we spent an hour.

on him. >> I think Sam to his credit is very. practical. He sees the tea leaves and. he's willing to negotiate and I think. that that versus being some kind of. moral absolutist will probably serve. OpenAI well in the future. >> Yeah. It's just going to lose them all. these virtue signaling principled. employees to go go work for Daario. That's why they go work for Daario. are. in line with their philosophies. >> We did mention, but everybody should. go and see all of the recaps. We. published now all the interviews. Yeah. Jason from Liquidity. Uh Sarah Prior, I.

mean, we mentioned Sarah Fry, but she. crushed it. She was incredible. >> The CFO of Open AI, >> future CEO, I think, was the buzz in the. room. >> I mean, >> oh, stop that. >> Stop. Can you stop? >> That's what people were saying. I have. the right to free speech on this. podcast. I think. >> Look at you trying to introduce wedges. This is. >> No, I'm not introducing wedges. I think. Sam would be better as chairman. I think. she would be the perfect CEO. >> It seemed like a good partnership. >> It seems like they have a great. partnership. I agree. >> Sarah was really impressive. >> Who else was your favorite? Sachs, did.

you have a favorite? Did you have. somebody who thought I did? I thought. Thomas Leafant crushed it with his. presentation on the overview of venture. capital. >> and he did it at summit I guess a year. and a half, two years ago. >> Two years ago, but we're going to make. it a yearly with him. Maybe. I think we. should make it an annual feature with. him because it's so interesting. >> So good. It's so good. >> It's so good. It provided so much um. numerical detail to support a lot of. things I was kind of feeling but didn't. >> have the data. >> To summarize it, he's his basic. observation was in this last cycle, if a.

company gets to a hundred billion. valuation, it's more likely to 10x from. there than from 10 billion to 100. billion. >> Well, he had data on this. Yeah, I. remember. >> he had data on it which is like, okay, well, that's going to really change. I. remember the slide. >> Yeah, there it is. It's 8%. I I. memorized it. >> Yes. [laughter]. >> Yeah. If you're if you're a capital. allocator, this one screamed. >> Look. Yes, that's right. The odds of a. unicorn getting to decacorn was 8%. The. odds of a decacorn getting to a senicorn. was about double that was 13%. And then.

the odds of it going from senicorn to a. trillion dollar market cap was 31%. So. double again. And I I asked him, you. know, could you extrapolate this on one. trillion getting to 10 trillion? My. guess is that it would follow and we'll. see about. >> 60% of. >> trillion dollar market cap companies. getting to 10 trillion in the next few. years. >> These are called trillicorns by the way. We call them trillion trilicorns in the. industry. So yes, >> this is going to go over really.

socialist crowd. People are going to. love this. Yeah, >> it's just all you got to do is seize 10%. of a trilicorn and you pay off 2% of our. national debt. pretty good deal. actually. >> All we need is 10% of 30 trilicorns and. we're debt free. >> I mean. >> it's not as crazy as it sounds. >> Is it more complicated than that? Now if. you send me in I'll get 60% of all of. them. >> Yes. And then we'll have a surplus of 30. billion and we can buy Australia. >> We'll pay it off much sooner. >> We could buy Cuba. >> I'd buy Canada first. Better scheme.

>> I would you know what I would do? I. would with Canada. I would buy like. Vancouver or Toronto. Just like break. them up. just buy like one of the. regions. And let me thank let me thank. Thomas Keller, the French Laundry, EY. who sponsored our very innovative. meeting hub at Liquidity. Here are some. photos of that. The New York Stock. Exchange, they hosted the speaker dinner. at the French Laundry. Amazing pictures. here. They are of us with Thomas Keller. and they did a great interview on site.

Niagen, they hosted the wellness lounge. which included recovery IVs. They're the. official NAD partner of the All-In Pod. and all of our longevity. Our new. bestie, our new bestie, Jake Paul, was. there. He's a really thoughtful guy, Freeberg. >> Jake Paul was awesome. >> I sat him next to Sachs for dinner. >> Yeah, he's a great investor, by the way. >> Fantastic. Fantastic. >> His portfolio is awesome. He had a great. team. His team came with him for the. thing. >> Great strategy. Yeah. >> One thing I'll say about Thomas Keller, he had a strong watch game. I don't know.

if you guys noticed that. >> Probably noticed it. >> Nice potential. He had a aqua knot green. band rose gold a complication on there. I was trying to trying to figure out. what the complication was. I couldn't. quite eyeball it. >> I don't know if [clears throat] you saw. it, Jimoth. >> I was I looked at it and I was like, "Wow, this is very it's very elegant.". Tell us Keller. I mean, the French. Laundry is just transcendent. Did you. have a favorite. dish? Of course. Was it the duck or was. it the Miyazaki? >> The duck was excellent. The Miyazaki.

beef was excellent, but the the tapioca. pearls I thought was the best. Oh, oysters and pearls. That's your oysters. with caviar. Sax, what was your favorite. there? Do you have a favorite? >> One of the caviar related dishes. >> Yeah, that's oysters and pearls. Round of golf. The following day, we. played a nine-hole scramble with. everyone. It was great. So great. >> How much did you gamble and who won? >> We had a $100 a hole. versus Chris Hoe, who's the chief. business officer of Athena. But, you.

know, that is like a plus. one, so whatever. I think we lost three. units. So, we lost. >> 300 bucks. >> All right. Shout out to our other. partner, Athena. Athena. Wow.com. Go get. a month free. All right. Whatever. I got. to stop showing. Most importantly, everybody was very upset that liquidity. sold out and people couldn't get in. There were like 3,000 applications. It's going to sell even faster uh next. time around. So, go to allin.com/events. and get your applications in if you want. to come to Summit September 13th, 14th, and 15th. Freeberg's doing some wild.

stuff. some wild stuff for that event. and uh it's gonna be cool. >> You're losing your mind. You're now. becoming very eccentric, unhinged in. your production value and Shimoth, >> you've been very selective in your. approach to the liquidity speakers. because liquidity is different than the. summit. The summit is like a festival. It's a huge party. There's all this. really interesting cross-sectional. stuff. But liquidity is meant to be for. one thing which is the most important.

capital allocators in the world should. have one place to convene, debate, learn, talk, build relationships. And I. want people to walk out of there with. relationships that they can use. And I. told you this before because capital is. what shapes the things that occur in the. world. So I think that we have to be. extremely selective in how we curate. every element of that show. It's not. meant to be that you can just buy a. ticket, but to just buy a ticket, which. is also a very fair and rational and.

nice thing. The summit is a party. It's. a vibe. >> It's awesome. And you're going to learn. a lot and have a good time. You'll be. entertained. All that great stuff. All. right, let's keep going. Breaking topic. this morning. CPI and PPI for May came. in hot. Inflation is ripping. Here we. go. CPI is obviously the consumer price. index that tracks inflation from the. buyer side. Rent, groceries, gas, healthcare, all that stuff. PPI is the. producer price index that tracks. inflation from the seller side.

Wholesale goods, raw materials, yada. yada. CPI came in at 4.2%. year-over-year, highest since April. 2023. There's your chart. PPI came in at. 6.5% year-over-year, highest since the. end of 2022. Here's your poly market. 21% chance. inflation hits 5% in 2026. Uh and then. an adjacent poly market chances of the. Fed hiking this year at 49%.

It was under 10% before the Iran war. started. By the way, European Central. Bank just raised rates a quarter point. on Thursday. This was their first rate. hike since September 2023. What do we. take from this Freedberg? It's all. related to the Iran war. Yeah, that's. the. >> there's definitely an energy blip from. the Iran war that drove the core index. up, but there's also the macro point. which is government spending out of.

control, inflation out of control and. fundamentally as things unravel you have. rising rates. So I think we should kind. of expect especially with a Kevin Worsh. Fed, I think we could see north of five. and a half, 6% overnight rates. It's not. unforeseeable. So, >> this is just the nature of our monetary. policy and our fiscal policy with our. congressional um members that vote all. of our future earnings away into.

But here we are. >> and and [laughter]. far worse. >> that nobody expected. Chimath, your. thoughts and then I'll wrap up with you. >> That was the most passive aggressive. take I've heard in a while from. >> He's a little upset about it. Yes. Clearly he's a little bitter about just. so stupid to watch. >> Can you tell us how you really feel? What happened? Like honestly, like what. else is there to say? I've said it like. a hundred times. It's just idiotic. The. the core problem with wealth inequality. in this country, the core problem with. inflation in this country, the core. problem, all of it roots back to excess.

government spending. End of story. All. of this, we're all talking about. machinations at the edge of the network. The core of the network is overspending. by the government because in order to. get elected, you need someone to give. you something more than you have today. That's how people get elected. And here. we are 250 years later. I don't know if. there's the will or the way to get out. of it, but one of the manifestations of. it will be in this late stage higher. rates and as a response to inflation and. here we are, you know. >> All right, Chim, what's your what's your. take on this? Is it a transient.

as we uh have had other presidents say? Is it uh is there a offramp for the Iran. war? I don't know if this is above all. of our pay grades, but this does seem to. be a challenging moment happening right. before the midterms. and consumers expected that their cost. of living would go down and that they. would benefit from this golden age and. it hasn't happened yet. Well, look, it's. concerning. I don't think that I. expected the print to be this hot. Now,

what's. keeping things in line? there's still a. chance that we're not going to see CPI. go absolutely crazy. And part of that is. because China has been smoothing the. energy consumption globally worldwide. And so we've kind of kept a damper on. $200 a barrel oil. In fact, we're. subundred. At the same time, I think. it's pulled forward a lot of more. practical sources of energy production,

not just in the United States, but. abroad. Specifically, what I mean is. solar. just because it's simple, it's. passive, and you don't need you don't. need a lot of permitting, and you don't. need clean air permits and the like. >> So, all of these things have been able. to keep a lid on it. >> If China somehow runs out of reserves, and they need to go back into the spot. market to buy an extra 3 million barrels. a day, there's a very big risk that oil. gets into the well past 100 and maybe. between 150 and 200 a barrel. That has a.

lot of downstream problems with respect. to CPI. Not even because US energy supply, but. really because the inputs that oil feeds. all around the world that then get. absorbed by the costs that people pay. for everyday things could go up. >> So I think the PPI number should be an. alarm that we use to offramp this around. situation sooner rather than later. I. just unless again because we don't know. what happened in China because none of.

us were there. Unless there's an. understanding. that the president has with Xi about how. much actual supply and slack is in the. Chinese system and that may allow him to. take a much longer road to get a. conclusive and decisive win in Iran, but. I I don't there was supposed to be some. tangible known resolutions with this. China trip. We haven't heard them. explicitly stated yet. What's your take. on uh this Sachs? uh the inflation print.

and is there like a a golden bridge to. to end this war in Iran? >> Jake, the problem is when you asked me. that question, people assume that I have. some sort of insight information and I. don't look the PPI print is what it is. I largely agree with what Chamas said. The only thing I would add is that it. was largely in line with expectations. That's why the market is actually up. today. Normally if there's a surprise. print and inflation is high then the. market is down because the market starts.

pricing in the implication of higher. interest rates. It's not doing that. today. So it's in line with. expectations. But I largely agree with. what Chamas said. >> Yeah. All right. Well, listen, we got to. get to other elections. You know, my. take on it is just huge colossal era. starting this Iran war and hopefully we. can get out of it. Um the downstream. effects of this are just disastrous. Um, I'm hoping there's a quick resolution or. some way to get out of it before it goes. to, you know, a year or two or three. We.

can't be in a forever war, obviously. >> NASDAQ up 2 and a half% today. That. normally doesn't happen when there's a. hot print because again, like tech. stocks are the most susceptible to high. interest rates. So, the market at this. point seems to be pricing in. >> a resolution. But we'll see. We'll see. >> We'll see. Yeah. I mean, it's just this. is a everybody knows Iran is a quagmire. and really was was a huge mistake. All. right, let's talk about the hand ringing. around vote counts in the LA mayoral.

primary instead of me reading all these. details. Just Freeberg, I know you're. hot. >> I think we know about it. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think [laughter] if you're on X, it's essentially your entire feed. Uh. Freeberg, what's your take? Is the. election system in Los Angeles, specifically in California, corrupt? And. is this election been stolen from. Spencer Pratt or is it just. >> There is no election.

>> There was no election. >> There is no election. >> Okay. So there is no spoon. Your rights. to have an election are gone. You are a citizen of those who tell you. who your overseers are. You are no. longer allowed to vote. >> allowed to vote. >> for your elected representatives. They. are now appointed representatives. So. enjoy the appointments that have been. made by who? >> Appointed by those who have constructed.

the matrix. >> Got it. Now I understand the background. There is no spoon. Agent Smith and all. the Agent Smiths are. in charge. So, here's some statistics. for you. In-person voting the day of the. election in Los Angeles County for. mayor. Spencer Pratt 35%. Karen Bass. 29%. Nipia Ramen 26%. mail-in ballots received before election. day, 38% for Bass, 28% for Pratt, 20%.

for Ramen. And then all these ballots. that arrive after election day, 37% for. Ramen, 35% for Bass, 19% for Pratt. So. Pratt's. post election mailin ballots declined by. one/ird. So statistically the population. of people that send in their ballots. late reduced for Pratt by a third. increased for Nipia Ramen by 80%. And Karen Bass 10% less if you just look.

at the mail in ballots before and after. election day as a comparison. I don't. know if there's a socopolitical way that. you can assess those statistics and. assume that these are individuals. casting their individual vote for who. they think should be mayor of LA. And. Nick, if you'll just pull up the map, which I think is worth taking a look at. Basically, the concentration of. incremental votes that Nitia Ramen got, came around the Skid Row area in Los. Angeles. And look, I'm not an election. denier. I'm not someone who's.

historically believed the idea that. elections are fraud and people have. stolen votes. But when you look at the. basic statistics of what happened in. person, mail in before, mail in after. election day, it becomes a real. statistical quagmire on how did this. sort of a sociopolitical shift happen in. such a way that it did. Now, there was a. report published, Nick, if you could. pull this up by the US House of. Representatives Committee on House. Administration. This was published in. May of 2020 and they highlighted the.

2018 California midterm elections and. the challenges they saw arise in that. midterm elections because of some of the. legislative changes that were made. First, California Assembly Bill 1921. legalized the practice of unlimited. ballot harvesting in the state. This was. passed around 2018 around the midterms. What that means is that any individual. in the state of California has the right. to go and collect ballots from any other. individuals regardless of relationship,

fill them out and send them in. California 2 years later, 18 months. later, also passed a law that made it. permanent that every person registered. in the state of California would get a. ballot. So tens of millions of ballots. then get mailed out. Then there was. another series of laws that were passed. that said anyone can register to vote. You don't need to prove your. citizenship. You can use a gym. membership card as an example. So anyone. can register to vote. There is no proof. of ID when you get a ballot. There is no.

demonstration that the person who fills. out the ballot has anything to do with. the individual who's supposed to be. voting that ballot. And it is legal for. an individual to go out and collect. hundreds or thousands of ballots, ship. them in, and they will all qualify in. these kind of mail-in ballot voting. processes. So there's nothing illegal or. fraudulent going on. In fact, the system. is operating exactly as intended. It has. been set up and structured in a way that. with the right construct, you can get an. individual appointed, not elected, but. appointed to a particular role in.

government under a quote free election. in California. This is a foundational. destruction of our rights to vote for. people in a free democracy. I feel it's. been eroded slowly over time to such an. extent now and I'm not some crazy MAGA. mother whatever people want to classify. me as for pointing this out but you can. go down this list they are all written. out in this document every one of these. laws that were passed in California over. time that in aggregate create the. environment and the construction for.

elections to become appointments and no. longer free democratic elections where. the principle very importantly the. principle should be one individual. one vote and if you opt to not vote, your vote should not be counted. So I. think that there's no fraud. I don't. think there's anything. >> It sounds like you believe there's. massive fraud. >> Yeah. I think this is not fraud. This is. this is the way the laws are set up. >> It's not fraud. >> It's the way the law is set up. >> Okay. Sachs, you say a fraud. >> This is the system of appointment.

>> Okay. Yeah. It sounds to me like you're. describing fraud, but you're saying the. system allows fraud. >> Fraud is breaking the law. Fraud is. breaking the law. The law allows them to. do it. If you paid people on Skid Row, that's not legal. >> That is illegal. But you are allowed to. go out and get anyone to register. You're allowed to go out and collect all. the ballots. And the people that are. doing it, as long as you're not getting. paid per ballot, you're legally allowed. to do it. Let me pause for one second. When you look at any one of these laws. in isolation, you can understand that. there is some altruistic intention or.

there can be framed to be an altruistic. intention behind it. Increase voter. activity. Give everyone the right to. vote. give more people access, more. channels to vote, etc., etc. And you can. rationalize away how every one of these. laws makes it easier and adds. lubrication to the system. And now we've. got a quote more accessible democracy. for everyone. But the truth is that. there is a concept in insurance called. adverse selection, which is if there is. a moment to exploit something, the.

criminals will exploit it to the extent. that it will become asymmetric. the. criminals or the or the do bads, not the. dogooders, will find a way to take. advantage of a hole in a system just. like hackers do to break into a network. >> and that's what you system ramen and. Spencer Pratt did. >> This set of mechanisms, this set of. construction has allowed for a system. that now has evolved into an. appointment. So you believe worked the. system better than Spencer Pratt? >> She had a better cheating operation.

Obviously, you can see it in the chart. the just look at the number of votes. >> Okay, define cheating here just so we're. clear. >> How does it happen where Bass stays flat. and then Ramen and Pratt just switch. places? So on election day, he's the. clear number two and then they keep. counting for a week. They don't even. know how many ballots they're supposed. to have. I mean, none of the stuff is. locked down. Okay, let me explain how. the cheating works. And to Freeberg's. point, it may or may not be legal. So I, you know, I don't want to get. sidetracked by whether the fraud is.

legal or illegal, but I think we all. know it's crooked. And here's how it. works. First of all, >> yeah, explain what's I'll explain it to. you. I'll explain it to you. And if I if. I misstate a fact, then let me know. >> So, first of all, California sends out. ballots to every registered voters. It's. something like 23 24 million people. Only 9 and a half million people vote. So, what happens to the other 14 million. ballots? I have a friend who lives in. LA. He manages apartment buildings. He. says that the ballots just pile up, you.

know, at the mailboxes. Yes. That. everybody has in the buildings. There's. like loose ballots everywhere. They're. sent to people who don't even live there. anymore. He like recognizes that the. names, they're people who haven't lived. there in years. So, the voter roles are. dirty. They haven't been cleaned up in. years. Okay. Then you have the issue. that there's no voter ID on election. day. There's no voter ID to even get. registered. When you sign your ballot, they run it through a machine. As long. as the signature matches 40%, I don't.

even know what 40% means. It's like less. than half accurate, the machine says. it's fine. Okay? And then it doesn't. even check the signature of the voter if. you have a supposed witness. So the. voter can just put like a little X on. their signature as long [clears throat]. as the witness says and they sign, but. there's no registration of witnesses. Anybody can be a witness. There's no. database of witnesses. And so the. witness just puts a squiggle. So what is. to stop the so-called ballot harvester.

from going filling out these ballots, putting a little X on the voter, putting. a little squiggle on on the the witness, and then dumping these ballots. There's. no chain of custody. So the risk would. be they would be arrested and. >> and right. >> well what is their expectation getting. caught? Gavin Newsome just signed a law. making it virtually impossible to audit. any of this stuff. >> So now even if they thought maybe they. could get caught. Let's just take a look.

at all the other types of fraud. happening in California right now that. we know about. We know that there's. billions of dollars in fraud in. California for things like Medicaid. fraud, unemployment fraud, EBT fraud, hospice fraud, fraud related to the. homeless industrial complex, and on and. on. That's all been proven. Okay. Is it. really so hard to believe that some of. the same groups, the same interest. groups, the same NOS's would be willing. to exploit these loopholes in the dirty. voter roles in the millions of ballots.

that go to incorrect or non-existent. addresses, the non-existent chain of. custody, the non-existent signature. verification, the no ID, not only to. vote but to register, counting ballots. without postmarks if received 7 days. later, registering thousands of ballots. from homeless shelters that don't even. have any beds. These are all known. things. So when you say that there's no. fraud, it's like come on, there's. loopholes and all you got to do is look. at the results and see that there's.

something crooked going on here. >> Okay, so you're in the camp that there. is fraud going on because where there's. >> it may be legalized. It may be. legalized, but it's fraud. >> Okay, so you believe there's fraud. Look, when you start mailing out. millions of ballots to people who don't. even vote, and then you have no audit. requirements, no chain of custody, no. punishments, no penalties, no. investigations, and there's a huge tons. of investigations both by attorney. generals. >> in California.

>> By who? >> Uh I I'll pull up the history. I will. say after every election, there are tons. of civil lawsuits filed. Like obviously. Trump filed 60 of 60 when. >> not in California. Uh I don't know just. made it impossible to do that kind of. audit. He just I think that's because he. was beaten so badly in a democratic. state. There was no reason to. But I. don't know why he didn't file in. California. But he filed 60 of these and. everybody kind of does that. They file. these constantly and attorney generals. can. So in this case, Chimoth, if.

there's so much smoke, if this statistic. seems so improbable, and there was the. Nick Shirley video of going to Skidro. and this possibility that they were. paying junkies and people who were high. to vote, this would be easily catchable. Actually, this would take a conspiracy. for thousands and thousands of votes to. have been swung. And that's what we're. saying here. We're saying upwards of. 10,000 votes were swung, but certainly. 5,000. Good luck. You would need a. conspiracy of hundreds of people or at.

least dozens to do that. >> Good luck going to Skid Row and getting. some meth addict to go on the record. >> I think they actually got somebody to go. on the record actually. That's a that's. the. >> There's a few videos of this. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that that's the crazy. part about it is they uh are saying. Skidro people got paid two or three. dollars and that somebody was found. guilty of this. Brenda Lee Brown. Armstrong. She plead guilty in 2026 of. paying. system is designed to allow. fraud. It's this it's designed. >> it has been won by 43,000 votes to.

>> guys. We live in a. autocracy in California where one. political machine has shaped the laws so. inexurably. that whether it's a mayor or it's a. state legislator or it's a state senator. or it's the governor, it's a one-way. door. There is only one party that can. win. and we are slowly seeing that that party.

increasingly. does not have the ability to govern a. state this dynamic and this complicated. They've changed the rules to make sure. that that monopoly is enforced. We have all tacidly approved it by. supporting or voting or not saying. anything. And the end result has yet to. be unveiled because it's going to take. another couple of decades for all of. this rot to really destroy these places. The reality is the voters probably.

should be given a chance to have Spencer. Pratt push back on what is the machine. so that at a minimum what they learn is. that the machine wasn't working nearly. anywhere close to the way it is. intended. Instead, what will happen is. two people that are in various shapes. and forms pretty deeply unqualified. and very similar now essentially get to. give you not much of a choice at all. So, I think the the the sad thing is.

Freeberg is right and Sax is right. Freeberg is right. The laws have been. shaped this way to make legal what would. otherwise be an illegality. and Sax is. right, which is that any rational person. should look at these laws and say this. is fraudulent. The unfortunate situation is unless. there's a some cataclysmic decision in. California, this is what we're stuck. with. It is time to vote all of these.

people out. >> You can't you can't vote. What do you. mean? How you going to do it? Anyone can. register anyone can vote. Spencer Pratt. can do. this. Can I answer Free Brook's. question? >> Sure. >> There is one break the glass way and. I've talked to a few of these guys about. what that is. How do you change the system? You must. get somebody at the absolute top of the. ticket elected.

That person is Steve Hilton. And if that happens, there is one thing. that Steve Hilton can do to start to. completely change the way that this. state is run, which is instantly on day. one declare a state of emergency. If you. pull on this thread, what you will find, there are lots of things you can do to. clean up how California works under a. state of emergency. I'll leave it at that. Yeah, it there's some common sense here. We shouldn't send ballots out to.

everybody. that made sense maybe during. co and if you can't be bothered to have. ID then maybe you shouldn't vote uh and. I don't think that there has been an. election a major election that has been. swung by election fraud the Heritage. Foundation has spent many many tens of. millions of dollars on this I understand. and they have a really great uh project. that tracks this people file lawsuits. like Trump did like Al Gore did. everybody's always filing lawsuits over.

this it's ever enough to swing an. election, but there's definitely on the. margins. >> Kennedy versus Nixon. Bro, >> hold on. Let me finish. >> The mob got Kennedy elected versus. Nixon. >> I'm talking in modern history. Yeah, in. modern history. >> That's pretty famous. That's pretty. famous. >> Okay, we we can get into if that's true or not. as well. The. >> Check out Lynon Johnson's history. Lyndon Johnson only got elected to the. Senate. He got a start in politics. through ballot fraud. >> We absolutely should have voter ID. We. should stop sending everybody one of.

these because the appearance of. impropriety is the problem here. Both. sides crazy new flash news flash. everybody. Both sides cheat. Both sides. bend the rules. One side does it by. limiting access. The other does it by. providing too much access. All these. politicians, overwhelming majority of. them are unethical. And all they care. about is getting elected. And they have. tons of people working for them in both. parties to massage these election. results. And if you get caught, it is a. serious penalty. There has not been in.

modern history major elections. Go ahead. and go to the Heritage Foundation. They. find all the nooks and crannies of. >> You keep using the word fraud like as if. it's a thing, but it's not. I'll tell. you who's at fraud. >> No, there's fraud. At [laughter] the end. of the day, there is fraud. There are. people have been caught doing fraudulent. things. >> The one group that is fundamentally to. blame is Congress. We have an. opportunity. There have been. opportunities to pass laws that will. make it illegal for people to vote if. they are not citizens, if they are not.

properly registered, and if they don't. show up with ID. That is a very simple. solve to this democratic electoral. process. We can't have a situation where. someone is legally allowed to go out and. collect a 100 ballots that they find. sitting in the lobby of an apartment. building or for people to register to. vote with a gym membership card when. fundamentally the federal government. already knows if you're not paying your. taxes, you're required to have a. driver's license to drive a car, you. have to have ID, you have to be. registered in the system to do nearly. anything and everything in this country.

as it is. So to exclude that very simple. requirement from the most foundational. obligation that we all have as citizens. of this country is inherently wrong and. it needs to be addressed by Congress. And if Congress fixes it and there are. federal laws that create systems that. ensure that elections are all about one. person getting one vote and they're. legally allowed to vote, then this. doesn't become an issue. Short of this, I worry where this goes because over.

time, the fewer people actually believe. that elections are real. And I hate. being on here sounding like I'm an. election fear-mongering guy who's. telling people that elections aren't. real, but the longer this goes on, the. more difficult it will be for people to. actually have faith in the system that. we're all operating within. And that's. when things get ugly and it needs to be. fixed. >> Yeah, I'm strongly agreeing. If you. can't be bothered to get a driver's. license or a passport, maybe you don't. need to vote. Yeah. >> Congress can fix it. And they should.

>> Yeah. And and there's, by the way, there's a ballot measure in California. If people in California want this, they. can just vote for the ballot measure. >> You mean the voter ID ballot measure? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's very important. Actually, look, if that fails, it's kind of our. last chance to save anything. >> for California's last chance. Yeah. Yeah. And you do sound like an your. entire speech, David, was you sound like. an election denier. >> I don't care what you label it. Look, the the Democratic party as a whole were. election deniers about Trump winning in. 2016. They concocted the whole Russia.

gate hoax to basically try and discredit. his election. >> When you look at the the difference. between walk-in and mailin ballots, and. I've seen everyone try to argue why. that's so different, it doesn't compute. for me. That's it. I'm not like trying. to make up a fact. This is the fact. Look at this facts on the on the on the. screen you're looking at right now. This. is the difference in the data. This data. tells me that something is wrong. That's. it. >> Obviously, >> I'm not trying to I'm not trying to just. fearonger because I don't like who got. elected. I don't give a what goes. on in LA. In fact, I think it's better.

for LA if they deal with the socialist. mayor for a couple years so they come. out the other side realizing they. shouldn't embrace socialist principles. I think it's great for the country. Actually, I think it's great for New. York. I think it's great for Seattle. I. think it's great for wherever Minnesota. Wherever people want to elect socialists. in this country, let's run into it. I'm. all about jumping through the socialist. well so we jump out the other side like. the Latin American countries are doing. now when everyone wakes up and realize. how up socialism is because it denies. everyone the opportunity for economic. mobility. It denies everyone their. individual liberties that this country. was founded on. Socialism is wrong. It's.

broken. It doesn't work. And if you all. want to go through that lesson, do it. Go for it. Let's do it. Let them get. elected. But the numbers on that. election data show me that that's not. what the people wanted. That it's not. very clear or evident to me that that's. what people voted for. And that's where. I'm like, my god, the system itself has. become a system of appointment, not a. system of election. And I get fired up. about that personally. You want to add. anything as we wrap here on this? >> Yeah. The party told you to reject the. evidence of your eyes and ears. It was.

their final most essential command. This. is obvious. Just look at the charts. Look at the data. We know something. crooked happened. It's statistically. impossible. The only thing we don't know. is whether it was illegal fraud or legal. fraud. Meaning they've created so many. loopholes and so much corruption in the. law that what they did is possibly. legal. It is still corrupt. It is still. crooked. It is ridiculous. Everyone can. see it. Do not deny the evidence of your.

eyes and ears. Even if they call you an. election denier, I personally don't. care. I deny it. Spencer Pratt should be. in the runoff. I deny that Ramen won. legitimately. >> The statistics are the statistics and. they would scream that you should have. the attorney general of California and. the federal attorney general look into. it and if they catch people doing this. stuff and they have caught one person. and Nick Shirley went down there and you. see people on Skid Row, you know, listen, homeless people should have the. right to vote theoretically. >> Why did Nome just sign a law making.

audits like that even harder? >> Yeah, I'm not defending Newsome here. I'm saying where's the attorney general? If there is in fact fraud, Trump has the. ability with his hands-elected attorney. generals to go after this. He controls. that part of uh you know our our. democracy. He should file and they. should go figure out what happened. statistically. So Trump, President. Trump, thank you, President Trump. Go do. it. Go do it. You got this attorney. general chasing down everybody else. Go. to this election. Use your powers. Audit.

it and find them. Where's President. Trump? >> You didn't hear my point that the the. state law just made it harder for the. federal government to come in and audit. the voter roles. So. >> yeah, he can still do it. >> I'm sure they will do it. I'm sure. they'll do it if they can. >> Yeah. I mean, trust me, Trump does what. he wants. If we've learned anything, >> he will do what he wants. And he's not. doing this now. >> What I find amazing is that the media. instead of asking tough questions like. how did this happen? How could the votes. swing so wildly in ballots that were.

only found after hold on after election. day? The media instead of trying to. demand answers and demand accountability. is trying to cover up and say nothing. wrong happened here. It's unbelievable. It's outrageous. >> What is the best theory steelman? What's. the best theory of why this discrepancy? >> I mean, we're sitting here talking about. it. >> What's the discrepancy? Anybody have a. steel man of why this discrepancy could. have happened that's legitimate? anybody. >> If the media is hanging on to a snapshot.

of the past where people actually cared. what they said and every time that they. can actually. reestablish trust, they kind of don't do. it because the people that. they want to curry favor with are. willing to play along. So I think what. happens is the media is like, well, I. have two choices. I can actually say. that Spencer Pratt should have won or.

could have won or investigate why he. didn't win, but then I'm kind of tacitly. supporting Trump. And hold on a second. I'm supposed to hate Trump. So, no. Yeah, you know, this is completely. normal. Nothing to see here. Everybody. moves on, hoping that then they get. ingratiated into the machine, but. they're going to get run over and used. like everybody else does, too. So, >> that's what's happening. Yeah, your. point is so spot on, Chimat, that like. if it's so polarized, meaning that. there's two polls that if you do. question, it's almost like you were. being put in the Trump proTrump camp.

Just like the word MAGA is thrown around. like, oh, you're a MAGA guy because. you're questioning election integrity. This has nothing to do with MAGA. It's. just simple conversation about a. particular topic. But if it's diametric. to the other camp, you're, you know, you. must be in that bad camp. And so then. they don't want to be put in that camp. It's so true. I'm for mathematical and. statistical literacy and what happened. here is mathematically and. statistically. >> So nobody has any steel man or concept. of how this could have happened. >> I can tell you the statistical odds that.

this would have happened and it's one in. a trillion. >> Okay. What if. >> So are you telling me the one in a. trillion shot hit? >> I I'm asking if there is any I'm not. >> just just this one time. >> I'm not I'm asking if there's anybody. who steals this in any way. I'm asking. I'll tell you what I've heard integrity. of. >> Why is it so psychologically important. for you to cling to the idea. >> it's not. elections that California elections are. completely corruption free after all the. things they've clearly done.

>> to corrupt them voter ID you admit. there's like it's chalk full of. loopholes. >> you ask me why am I holding on to it I'm. not holding on to it for the purpose of. discussion and having an intellectually. honest discussion I'm asking the three. of you if there you've heard or if you. have any theory just for the. rigorousness of the discussion. This. isn't my position. >> Where are all the democracy protectors. in the media now? >> They all said that they were they were. the guardian they were the guardians of. democracy. They're going to protect. democracy. Where are they to ask.

question? >> The only theory that I can think of I'll. steal a minute myself. I because I I. think you do need to be rigorous. >> You go ahead first. Yeah. The the only. thing I can think of is her ground game. is more sophisticated because they've. been at it longer than Spencer Pratt and. he didn't have a ground game that took. this in since he's a non-traditional. firsttime candidate. That's the only. thing I can think of. >> Sophisticated a coded word for he wasn't. bribing Skidro homeless judge. >> No, he just has it. He doesn't have. [laughter] an election machine to. collect ballots and collecting ballots. is legal. That's the That's the.

question. >> She had a better cheating operation. Obviously, >> we're saying the same thing. We're not. actually saying anything different. >> The Twitter commentary was that people. were waiting. because there's so many people that are. so against Spencer Pratt, but they. wanted to be sure that they voted for. the right candidate, whether it's Ramen. or Bass. And so the people that held. their ballots the longest saw the. polling data that Bass was going to win. That's why they all voted for Ramen last.

minute was to try and promote her to. make sure. >> has been shipped because of the you. could have two Democrats at the top of. the ticket. >> That's right. And they didn't want. Spencer Pratt to have a shot at the. general. And that by the way, you know, I mean, if you saw my interview with. Spencer Pratt, he said Ramen registered. one hour before the deadline and she's. friends with Bass and that the whole. point was to keep him from actually. making it onto the general ballot. So. that some of the coordination that. people were making in their minds was. like, we got to make sure we vote for. the two Democrats and then they'll. figure out, hey, is it wrong? Let's just.

box him out. >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Which is like why they all waited till. the last minute to vote for to vote for. how do you coordinate something like. that? That that's always the question I. have with these like. >> these people are all brilliant geniuses. It's it's hundreds of thousands of. brilliant geniuses row that out. >> Yeah, there's a chat group. I mean, it's. not that complicated. >> Alan Harvesters did it. what Freeberg. said just happened. It's just that the. ballot harvesters did it, not the actual. voters, obviously. >> And ballot harvesting is legal, but it's. sketchy and maybe they And if there are.

ballot harvesters, I think that Trump. and the DOJ can catch these people. >> How the is it legal that someone can go. out and collect other people's ballots. and fill them out and send them in? It's. the craziest to me. >> No evidence of fraud right now. Statistics don't look good. Donald J. Trump, you control the Department of. Justice. Go investigate it. >> Okay. I love you guys, but I'm hungry. I. got to go. This has been. >> an amazing episode of the Allin Podcast. Bye-bye. >> Love you boys. Byebye.

>> Let your winners ride. [music]. [music]. >> We open sourced it to the fans and. they've just gone crazy with it. [music]. >> [music]. >> Besties are gone. >> That is my dog taking [music] a notice. in your driveway. >> Oh man, my habitasher will meet me up.

[music]. >> We should all just get a room and just. have one big huge orgy cuz they're all. just useless. It's like this like sexual. tension that we just need to release. somehow. Wet your. wet feet. [laughter] We need to get Mercy's going. all in. [music]. I'm going all in.