World's First Trillionaire, Anthropic Fable Banned, The New Oligarchs, Iran Peace Deal

All right, everybody. Welcome back to. the number one podcast in the world. It's the All-In podcast. The original. quartet is here. Lazar, David Sacks. How. you doing, brother? >> I'm good. >> You had a busy week. Got a long post. from you on X. We'll get into it. >> [laughter]. >> Wait, a lot of what? >> Long posting. A lot of long posts. >> I had like one long post. >> I know. How's the carpal tunnel going. over there? You got two. Something like. that. You got that carpal tunnel flaring. up. >> I got a third one teed up, but I might. use it on the. >> You got one in the chamber?

>> I got one in the chamber, but I was. going to save it for the pod. It's a. good one. >> Ooh, coming in hot. >> [laughter]. >> I wonder who's going to get this bullet. >> [music]. [music]. >> We open sourced it to the fans, and. they've just gone crazy with it. >> [music]. >> A cackling, of course.

Who's [laughter] the dick in dictator? It's my bestie, Chamath. Holly Hopcatia. How you doing, brother? Getting ready. for summer? Summer j'olais's have been. laid on the bed. You're ready to pack it. up. >> Opposite. I got a lot of travel. >> Grinding. Oh, I forgot. You're doing founder-led. sales. So, the summer of relaxation's. over. Now, he's in the CEO slot. Got to. get out there and do those enterprise. sales. And, of course, coming off a pretty hot week.

Comment section was on fire. Very. pro-Freeberg. Very very Freeberg. Perhaps his greatest performance. Also. >> Greatest. >> the first performance when he said more. than three sentences. What's going on, Freeberg? You went off last episode. And. And then, I think you also with the long. posts. >> You know what's so funny? As the. valuation of Ohalo ticks up, he gets. more and more based. I I it. >> He is getting. >> Welcome to the club. Welcome to the club. >> He's got trace commas based.

>> Unleash the beast. >> When you're just a mere singleton, you. kind of just keep it to yourself and. then all of a sudden you start. >> All of a sudden you're like a. nine-figure Friedberg, he's like, I got. something to lose. >> Wait for 10-figure Friedberg. >> 10-figure Friedberg's like, "YOLO.". You also with the long posts. You and. Nancy Pelosi making sweet, sweet quotes. with her. >> He's starting TO. >> WHAT'S HAPPENING? >> [laughter]. >> WHAT IS BEING FORMED IN THE UNITED.

STATES RIGHT now is the greatest. [laughter] American Politburo, okay? The. great American Politburo has formed. The. new oligarchs are taking their seats. The great The great American Politburo. is being formed. The new oligarchs are taking their. seats. They're arranging the chairs. They're determining who will be chairman. of the Politburo, who will assign what. work force to do what efforts for them, which $600 million stock trades their. families will make to benefit and enrich.

themselves as they fly around in their. private jets on the taxpayers' money, and we're watching it all before our. very eyes as individual liberties are. eroded. I am fired up about it. I see it. happening. >> You know, Sachs is on the show this. week. You can't just take strays like. that. Friedberg, expand on who the. Politburo is. >> Yeah, so So, basically, the The. Politburo is the leaders who elect. themselves to dictate the flow of the. economy, the allocation of capital, what. work individual they're allowed to do,

and what what activities they're allowed. to do in an unfree society, which is. what they're creating. They are the true. oligarchs, and this is Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna. This is the. the group that is trying to coalesce. power. and create for themselves a system. whereby they have greater influence, greater control over aspects of the. economy. They want to seize the means of. production. They want to control. education. They want to control media. And anytime there's an effort by an. individual enterprise or an individual.

themselves to go out and build a. business and succeed and do something. that's outside of their scope and their. span of control, they lose their minds. over it. And that's what we're seeing. So, I react to their tweeting and their. where they're basically trying to. contort things about inequality and. fairness and justice when the truth is. they are the rising empire, the evil. empire in Star Wars. They are. the folks who want to take from all of. us. what we were endowed with when this.

nation was started and what many people. came to this country for, which is. individual freedom and liberty. The. ability to build a business in peace, the ability to make decisions, to do. what you want with your own assets and. to have functionally private property. And they're taking it all away and. they're trying to take it all away and. we're watching piece by piece, step by. step. So, they are forming a politburo. where they can effectively control the. economy, control education, control. [clears throat] the media, and tell us. all what we can and can't do and say. And it's frustrating to me to watch it. because it's masqueraded as. virtue, as justice, as equity. It's a.

bunch of nonsense words that. they use to try and make themselves seem. virtuous when in the end of the day they. are fundamentally evil. And I hate. watching it. So, that's why I react so. aggressively to it. Freeberg, you I. think you said something that's really. important, which is they they present it. as virtue. >> That's right. >> Put yourself in the. body. of a person that's probably middle of. the roadish but is falling for it.

Why do you think they're falling for it? >> Because they have needs and wants and. desires individually. that this person is saying this system, this evil empire, will give to you. If you take the knee, we will give you. the education for free. We will give you. the child care for free. We will give. you the food for free. We will give you. the the paycheck every week. We will. give you We will give you We will give. you. Those promises in a democratic. system like this or in a fake democratic.

system like this are what make people. feel like the the virtuous. uh offerings will align with their. individual needs and wants. And I think. that that's why people say like, "Okay, that's good. Free child care for all.". There is inequality in the world. There. is disparity in wealth. There is. disparity in asset ownership. And your. solution. despite. you know, the the loss of liberty along. the way and the loss of economic. mobility that arises from what you're. offering. And this is really key. People don't realize the value of the.

United States. the power of this nation was to give. people individual liberty which which. unlocks agency. to progress yourself. To educate. yourself, to make money, to give. yourself more assets and more freedom. and more flexibility than you had. Economic mobility is the key to the. United States. You do not get economic. mobility if the government is giving you. a job or giving you money. You lose. economic mobility. You become indentured. to the government. Everyone wants more. Everyone wants something that they don't. have. But the truth is that the more the.

government is giving it to you, the less. you have mobility. The more you are. indentured, the more you are enslaved, and the more we are uh limiting people's. uh ability. to progress. And I think that that's. what's really so frustrating for me is. that people sign up to this to your. point, Chamath, and they're like, "Okay, that's great. I I get to have this and I. get to have that and I get to have. that." But at the end of the day, you're. giving all of your liberties up. You're. giving all of your progress up. You're. giving all of your mobility. >> is what you're saying. And you're. looking for them and you don't have. agency to pursue your own personal. freedom. Yeah?

>> One thing I believe to be 100% true is. that no human being that's ever been. alive has ever lived up to their true. capacity as a human. Like human agency. is limitless. >> Limitless. >> Limitless. And and the truth is like. anytime that you create a system with. the government that's giving people. stuff, you are taking away people's. agency. And so that is what is so so sad about. the whole thing is like human agency is. the one thing that we have unlimited.

capacity, unlimited, infinite upside. Every human does. And and to enshroud. yourself in this government burden. thinking that it is a relief. >> Well, then that creates learned. helplessness cuz you're always looking. to the government to solve your. problems. >> The threshold for learned helplessness. is. far far lower than one may think. I grew up on welfare. And my mother was initially a. housekeeper.

And then she was a nurse's aide. She was probably making eight, nine, 10. bucks an hour. My father couldn't get a. job. So we were on welfare. And welfare was probably 17, 18, 19. thousand dollars a year at the time in. Canada. And it's a family of five. But it was just enough. that my dad just spent this cycle. between drinking and not working, drinking and not working. And he would. try in bursts.

And you know, I I think that it must. have been deeply frustrating for him, obviously. So I want to be compassionate. to the struggle that he went through. But man, I would have thought. >> But. >> 17,000 is not nearly enough support and. so it would animate you. to try to do whatever it took. But could. he have gotten a job making eight, nine, 10 bucks an hour at a store? He could. have. He chose not to. And so my recollection. of being a ward of the state is that the.

threshold for that helplessness is far. lower than one may think. >> Right. >> And then if you actually stack all these. other things, people will just fall into their worst. proclivities. And they will be a shell and a shadow of. what they could be. My dad was, in my. mind, a giant who had all this potential. unfulfilled. And I keep that because I want a. positive. sense of who he was to me, despite all. of the ups and downs and the stuff that.

he went through and how it did. negatively affect me at times. But, man, if you want a whole country of. those people, what happens when you're. giving people 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80. thousand dollars a year of stuff? One, at some point you're not going to. be able to pay for it. But, two, you're going to reduce people. to a shell of what their potential is. And that is not good. I have lived it, and I am warning all of you, be careful. what you wish for. >> Mhm. The flip side of it, by the way, as. you point out, you can't pay for it.

What ends up happening is the moment. that we find ourselves in today, and we. see it in and we'll talk about. Pritzker's law in Illinois that passed. this week. But, we are now at a moment where we are. saying there is no longer private. property in the United States. This is. one of the foundational. rights that the founders of the United. States tried to create a distinction. between these other. nations that everyone flees from, where. a monarchy or a totalitarian government. or some communist system says everyone.

owns everything together or some small. number of people own and control. everything. And that's what this always. comes down to, whether it's a socialist. state or a communist state or a monarchy. or some other totalitarian regime, there's a small number of people that. own and control everything. And that is. the brink that we're on because they are. trying to say, for the first time ever, there is no longer private property in. the United States. That if the. government can say everything that. you've already paid your income tax on. and then you've bought and you now own, the government can take a piece of it.

every year based on the vote and the. budgetary needs of an irresponsible. fiscal legislature, we've lost it all. >> Yeah. >> And that's where we [clears throat] are. And we see this it just passed in. Illinois. People think it's just crypto, just like they think that with. billionaire tax it's just billionaires. But anytime the government can take your. private property after you've paid your. taxes, bought something and put it in. your garage, we are done for. >> Yeah, we're going to get. >> Because that is that is when the. Politburo has unlimited capacity to tax. and take and do what they want.

>> Here's That's the moment we're at. >> Well, and the the super sinister part to. to dovetail what both of you are saying. and to give some grace to your dad, Chamath, in the studies of learned. helplessness for people who, you know, are trying to guess what that term is, who who haven't heard it before, a. psychological condition, if you give. people a hard problem to solve, like an. impossible problem to solve, they don't. solve it, then you give them easy. problems to solve, they don't solve the. easy ones, and they become depressed. And then they attribute their depression. to themselves, they internalize it, in. other words. If you give people easier.

problems to solve, uh and make them. increasingly harder as you go, they become empowered. They have agency. They feel like they can solve problems. And then when they get stuck on. something, they don't attribute it. internally. And this is the why alcoholism is so. pernicious in our society as well, is. because when you start attributing it to. yourself and then you start. self-medicating, you try to dull these. feelings cuz you're depressed. And I've. had many friends who've gone through it, and family members. And this is why having agency is so. important. This is why endless.

unemployment is so dangerous. Uh and you need to taper people off it, and you need to give them a chance to be. successful. If your dad had taken that. 10-12 dollar an hour job, he would have. become the manager, then he would have. become the owner of the place. >> So, the coda to your story is. at some point I think, and I don't know. because my mom doesn't share this with. me, there was some kind of. breaking point because it was a really. violent household, and then. near the end of my high school career,

when I left, things got I think. materially better. And part of it was. because he got a job. >> Mhm. >> And ultimately, he got a job, pretty. low-level clerical work at the. government, but we were so proud of him. And he did that until he passed away. But it changed. him completely. Now, I could also have. been because he had gotten older, you. know, but drank a lot less and was much. more regulated.

>> Yeah. >> So, I completely agree with what you're. saying. >> It's a really sad phenomenon. And you. And you see it sometimes in successful. people. They get successful very quick. They don't attribute it to their own. success. They get up out of bed in the. morning. They don't have to get out. They start drinking. They don't take a. job. And And they're affluent, but. they're just not motivated. They don't. have purpose. All right, let's get. started. We got a huge docket to get. through today. >> SpaceX had a record-breaking IPO, and. $60 billion cursor deal was quickly. consummated, as predicted. Friend of the pod, Elon Musk, took Space. X public last Thursday. $135 a share. A.

lot of people got to participate. Robinhood, Charles Schwab, everybody. talking about they got an allocation, one share, 10 shares. And they filled. the green shoe. $85 billion raised. That's three times what Saudi Aramco. raised back in 2019. The stock closed up. 19% to 161, market cap above $2. trillion. And uh at the taping of this. pod, $177. Not too shabby. On Tuesday, Space X exercised its option to acquire. Cursor. That's the coding agent that got.

shivved by Speaking of Anthropic and. Claude, they originally used Claude to. be the back end of Cursor. And then. Claude and Anthropic had an internal. Skunk Works project. They told Cursor, allegedly, they were never going to. release it to the public. They would. never have a coding agent. And they did. And that led to this incredible. opportunity for Cursor to make their own. model and use Elon's hardware at. Colossus. They're doing 4 billion in revenue, so. they got bought for 15 times revenue. SpaceX trading, I don't know, 60, 70.

times revenue. So, a great deal for. everybody. SpaceX briefly passed Amazon. and Microsoft, which is mind-blowing to be the fourth. most valuable company. Amazon's revenue in 2025, 717 billion. Microsoft's 2025, 282 billion. SpaceX's. 2025, only 19 billion. So, uh they That's corrected a bit and now. SpaceX is sitting at seventh largest. company right behind TSMC. That's the. Taiwan Semiconductor Corporation. So,

let's just go around the horn here. Congratulations to Elon and the team. over there. Elon exercised his Tesla. shares that he had coming from his. employment uh there. I think he's done a. pretty good job as CEO. He got a little. bonus. So, that sets up potentially Chamath, the merger of the two big companies. Just broad strokes, what's your take. from Takeaway from the SpaceX IPO? Seems. to have been executed flawlessly. >> It's an incredible company. It's a. one-of-one. It's just a unique.

unique animal. I think that. the highest price-to-sales. was essentially these last few days. And. now it's just going to grow into its. valuation and generally just grow. valuation. Nick, play the clip. The acquisition was. essentially negotiated and the way that. it's structured is so that the S-1. doesn't go stale. So, I think the way. that it was.

announced has more to do with the fact. that they don't want to slow down and. have to rewrite parts of the S-1, have. to redo the disclosures, have to redo. the risks. The deal is effectively done. >> Mhm. >> But, what's so smart is that where is. SpaceX today? Let's call it a trillion. Where could it be? Just for the purpose. of this argument, let's say 2 trillion. So, when the deal gets done on a. stock-for-stock basis, it's going. [clears throat] to be Again, if it's 60. billion in tomorrow dollars, effectively. Elon's gotten a 50% discount.

>> Mhm. All right, nailed it. We'll give. that a mhm. Okay, sure enough. >> what I didn't factor as well is that the. revenue run rate would essentially. double on top of that. So, he. essentially got Cursor for 15 billion. >> He got a good deal. >> Which is unbelievable. His business. intellect off the charts. That is an. incredible deal. And now. the consolidation phase will begin, and. we're going to see Tesla and SpaceX. merge, and it's going to be glorious. >> Sacks, you can also take a. a little bit of a victory lap here. You've been friends with Elon since.

PayPal days, obviously. And um. you obviously were an investor in SpaceX. for a long time. Your thoughts on what. this means for the company? Obviously, it's an incredible milestone, but what. does it mean for the company going. forward? Obviously, champagne bottles, yada yada, but what does it practically. mean for SpaceX and Elon going forward? >> Well, in a certain sense, as we all. know, this was the biggest IPO of all. time. And so, in that sense, it was a. huge milestone for this company. that Elon and many other people have. been working on for a very long time. I.

mean, this has been 25 years in the. making. When people turn on the TV and. they see this, they think that this is. just some sort of overnight success. It's not. A lot of people had to work. very hard to get to this point. But, at the same time that it was this. historic IPO, it's also the case that in. a certain sense, this didn't change. anything for Elon. You know, I think. when people read that he's the world's. first trillionaire, they start to think. that he must have gobs of money, a. trillion dollars sitting in a bank. account. And that's not true. That's not. how it works. That's not how wealth is.

created. He doesn't have one more dollar. in the bank than he did the day before. the IPO. He doesn't have more stuff. Doesn't have more houses or anything. that you could buy with money. Literally, his balance sheet is exactly. the same. It consists of the same thing. It's just that the public is putting a. higher value. on the shares of stock in SpaceX that he. already owned. And he's not selling. He's under a. 1-year lockup, and I predict that he'll. hold on for much longer than that. because creating SpaceX is his life's.

work. So, you know, you see all these. people reacting with tremendous. animosity and basically saying that, you. know, we can't allow the world's first. trillionaire, you know, stuff like that. Look, he doesn't have more cash than he. did the day before the IPO. >> Clearly. It's that other people are. placing a greater value on what he's. built. >> Yeah. >> And I think this is a a very important. for people to understand is that. there's a big difference. between stuff and then the machines that.

make the stuff. And I think, again, this is where wealth. comes from is the machines that make the. stuff. So, you know, you go all the way. back to hunter-gatherer days, right? The. only wealth was in what you could. collect, hunt, gather, whatever. It's basically the collection of stuff. Then humans. developed the ability to create tools, and then very sophisticated tools, and. then some of those tools are. corporations, which are almost like. cybernetic organisms or combinations of. tools, workflows, humans work in them.

And it's those corporations that make. the stuff. And the way that people get. wealthy is that if you create a machine. that makes more stuff, then there's a. discounted present value. for all the stuff in the future that. that machine might create. And that's. where the wealth comes from. It's in the. discounted present value. >> Really. >> It's not in the stuff. It's in creating. a machine that will create stuff for. humanity for a long time, and people. will put a value on it today.

>> That's really well said. >> because of all the stuff that it'll. create in the future. And so, just out. of nowhere, it will appear that all of a. sudden you have all this wealth created, but again, that wealth is a reflection. of all the stuff that this machine will. now create in the future. And people. need to understand that that process is. a good thing because when you think. about all the progress that humanity has. made, it's not in having more stuff. because again, that stuff all it all. goes away, right? Whether it's. food or shelter or clothes or whatever.

It it depreciates. It's a wasting asset. The reason why. humans. are more prosperous is because of all. the machinery we've created to make. stuff well into the future. And you. know, again, some of that stuff can be. things like shelter, clothes. It can. also be medicines and cures and. entertainment and all the things. electricity all the things that make. your life better. We need those machines. and someone has got to own the machines. and the people who own it are the ones. who create it. And the thing that Karl.

Marx never understood is that it's not. this sharp delineation between capital. and labor because you can take people. who start with nothing. He also started. with nothing. I mean, he was a immigrant. >> Nothing. >> to the United States. He came here with. nothing. He slept on the floor. He created these. companies. He created these machines. from nothing with his own vision and. hard work and he included thousands of. other people. So, here's the other thing. is just because you're "labor" doesn't. mean that you're not also an owner of. capital. There's a great story about how.

there's a welder. who worked at SpaceX who I think has. made a million dollars in SpaceX stock. Transformational, but everybody who's. part of these companies and I think this. is the magic of the tech industry. It is. it is much more inclusive in terms of. ownership than any other industry. >> It's the magic of capitalism in free. markets where anyone can participate in. that market. Anyone can enter that. market and ultimately anyone can. transition from being labor to capital.

>> Yes, it's fluid. It's back and forth. >> If you buy shares in a company and you. have the ability to buy shares. >> You just vest them with sweat equity. >> Or you start a business and you. basically do work, save money, invest. your capital, and continue to compound. the capital. till you get to a point that your labor. is worth less than your capital. And. that's what ultimately allows this. economic mobility, this transition for. people. And when you take that away, you. destroy that capacity for mobility. >> That's why capitalism is where we.

started today, yeah. >> That's right. And that's why. >> today with agency. >> That's why it's so frustrating to me to. watch people denounce. Elon's success and denounce the value. that the world is putting on this. business and on this success. Because. what they're saying is that no future. human, no kid that's sitting on a on a. floor right now, sleeping on a floor, that's poor, should have the capacity to. achieve what Elon achieved. No one. should be allowed that capacity to. transition, to progress, to mobilize. themselves.

>> Freiberg They're saying you should hate. him. >> By denouncing him, and by denouncing. that, you are basically taking that. ability away, and you're saying. >> that this is evil. And you're telling. all these young kids around the world. that are thinking about their future, that they are now indentured to a. government or to a fixed income for the. rest of their lives to perform labor for. a fee for the rest of their lives as. opposed to having the opportunity to. transition, which is what Elon has done and what. millions of others have done because of.

the freedoms in the United States and. and other free markets that have allowed. this to happen for people. And that is. why it's not just about getting wealthy. It's not just about getting rich. It's. about having agency to transition. yourself. >> And it's a good transition. And inspiring young people, yeah. It's a. different kind of transition. >> It's a good transition. No, you're. transitioning from from labor to capital. by virtue of sweat equity. You have. skills that are valuable that you can. then translate into creating something. that's valuable. And just Just to. underscore that point, I mean you think. about SpaceX, it's a machine that makes.

satellites. It's a machine that makes. broadband connections from space. It's a. machine that creates launch vehicles. And AI software and so forth and so on. So it's a machine that makes things that. people want and that therefore enhances. people's lives and it's only the market, the public's value that it places on. those things that creates the net worth. that creates the value of SpaceX's stock. and therefore the net worth of someone.

like Elon. But again, he doesn't have. one more dollar than he had before. >> Well, and to put a finer point on it, you have to earn that by continuing to. make the best product in your class. The. second Elon satellite Starlink is not as. good as the next two or three. competitors and there are two or three. of them coming right behind him and. there's other people doing rockets and. obviously he's in a heated competition. for LLMs and with Cursor versus Claude. Coach. It's he's not guaranteed. He has. to fight and he's had to fight to win.

each of those categories and the second. he stops fighting in those categories he. loses and all that equity gets cut like. we see when stocks tank because they. cannot keep up. So he's had to fight for. every inch. by making the best product. Nothing was. given to him. Everything was earned and. earned by his team. This idea that like. he won the lottery. is farcical. It's a 25-year overnight. success story that had three or four. distinct points where it was going out.

of business and he had to scramble. >> I've always thought that the people that. rail on wealth are actually secretly. incredibly jealous and want to be. extremely rich. Because I've never heard a coherent. argument. about why when somebody achieves. something that you should dismantle the. things that they're building. And what you both of you said are so. right. The vicissitudes of the market. can make that number fluctuate wildly.

There is a version of the market that. has nothing to do with him that judges. his stuff in the future. as half of what they're judging it. today. Nothing stops us from doing that. And all of a sudden, everybody who's. breathlessly mad that he's a. trillionaire, what do they say now? Because he. wouldn't be a trillionaire. He's some. version of what he was the Thursday of. last week, right? >> Right. Right. And you know, to take. semi-analogy, the machines become. obsolete very quickly, you know, in a. capitalist society.

You can get disrupted. And companies get. disrupted all the time if they become. stale or calcified. If If they don't If. they don't invest in maintaining and. upgrading their machine, they will. become obsolete. >> Improving value. Do you know what can't. get disrupted? Do you know what can't. get disrupted? The one unobstructable. monopoly, government. And that's the problem. Government is. competing for capital, and it's. competing for markets, and it's. competing for all these things. And. that's why I talk about these people as. being evil. They're a politburo. They're.

basically trying to take away capacity. for value creation, to make things. better every generation for a society, better medicine, better education, better livelihoods, better homes. Everything gets better. But when the. government monopolizes it, it doesn't. And that's the competing force that. we're up against. >> Yeah, and. I want to just add one thing to this, which is there is a piece of this that. needs to be solved, which is. people wanted to participate in the. success of these companies earlier. And.

we Chamath and I interviewed the head of. the SEC, and he's working on this, but. the amount of demand from retail, and it. was a very innovative thing that Elon. did in the team over at SpaceX. They. gave 20 or 30% of the IPO to retail. investors. When you opened up your. Robinhood account, I don't know if you. guys have one, or a Charles Schwab. account, it gave you a little interface. that said, "Hey, would you like to. participate in the IPO of SpaceX?" And. you could put in your request. I think. six or seven, I was talking to Vlad, maybe six or 700,000.

Robinhood users got an allocation. It. might have been one share, it could have. been 50. That democratization needs to. continue because the real. back to Freeberg's points about being a. wage slave or an equity holder and. trying to make that transition. Well, people being able to open up Robinhood. and just buy one or two shares and vote. with their dollars for 150 bucks that. they want this future as opposed to. other versions of the future. That's. what gives them that empowerment. That's.

what gives them that agency. Well, what. if they could do that earlier? And I've. beaten this drum on this podcast and on. my other podcast for a decade on this. But people knew SpaceX. They were. watching these rockets launch for a long. time. And they would have placed that. bet 10 years ago when the company was. worth 100 billion or 10 billion or, you. know, 500 billion, but they weren't. allowed to because we have a corrupt. system in our government that says rich. people, the top four or five percent of. this country, are smart enough to buy. private company stocks and the 95% are.

too stupid to. And it's antiquated and. it has to change and you should be able. to buy whatever you want. If you want to. buy crypto, you can. If you want to buy. a private company, you can. If you want. to play cards with your friends and play. bomb pots and watch Dave Freeberg. rage quit because he keeps losing at. bomb pots when we play. That's. Freeberg's right. Let people buy private. company stock. It's crazy that we still. have this rule keeping poor people poor. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Can I.

take a shot at answering Chamath's. question? What Why are there so many. people who are influential, who are. resentful of what Elon's done or what. other capitalists do? I think it was. Joseph Schumpeter who explained this. that basically you've got this. intelligentsia. in a society like ours where they don't. make things, they don't make the. machines that make things. They just. make words and you know, I guess ideas. and most of those ideas are just wrong, right? They're just made up. And they become resentful of the fact.

that there are all these people who are. able to create not the stuff but the. machines that make the stuff, right? And. that in. our society, that is the thing that. creates the greatest reward financially. Why? Because it actually aligns with. what's in the greatest value for. society, whereas they produce a bunch of. hot air. So, it's natural for that class. of intelligentsia to become resentful. and hostile towards the people who are. able to amass this great wealth.

>> I think that the great lie. is that there are two sides to the. society that is the rich and the poor. And the great truth is that there are. two sides that are the makers and the. takers. The lie is that the rich are unfairly. rich and the poor are unfairly poor. And. therefore the poor must take from the. rich. But the truth is that it's the takers. that tell you that lie. That the real truth is that artists. plumbers. electricians, woodworkers, computer.

scientists, people that build, people. that make from all walks of life, all income levels, all wealth brackets. are the makers. And the takers are what Sachs calls this. intelligentsia, the analysts. The espousers, the armchair mechanics, the critics, the commentators, the. politicians. They are the takers. They. are the people that watch the rest of. society make stuff, build stuff, specifically doing things that create.

value for other people in society. That's what a maker is. Tell my kids. this lesson all the time. I say, "What. did you guys make today?" They tell me. something they made and I'm like, "Did. someone else value it or did you make it. just for yourself?" At the end of the. day, if you made something and someone. else valued it, you were a maker. That. was an amazing achievement. That is a. great day. Whether you make a piece of. art, whether you build a house, whether. you write a piece of software, whether. you build a business, whatever you make, if you're a maker and someone else. values it, they become your customer in.

some way, they become your partner in. some way, you've done something. valuable. Those are the true engines of. progress for humanity. And the takers. are the ones that tell the lie that it's. rich versus poor, because they what they. want to do is rip apart the makers. And. they want to tell everyone you got to be. on one side or the other, and they use. that lie to get everyone to line up. against each other and to give. themselves ultimately the control to. form the great American Politburo, which. is what they're trying to create. That. is what's underway right now, and that. is the fundamental great truth and great.

lie that that we're kind of fighting. against at this moment. >> All right, this broke shortly after we. taped our episode last week. We tape on. Thursdays, we drop on Fridays as fans of. the show know. Well, the US government has pulled the. plug on Anthropic's latest model. You've. heard us talk about that as Mythos. They released it as a controlled version. called Fable 5. So, there was Mythos, that was the one they held for 30 days. while they were doing security. cybersecurity testing. Then they. released it as Fable in a a bit of a um.

guardrailed version of it. Commerce. Secretary Howard Lutnick told Anthropic. to restrict that model to US citizens. last week, last Friday in fact. Anthropic couldn't. implement those restrictions or wouldn't. in that granular of a way, so they just. decided to do something more. conservative and shut it down for. everybody. This of course created a lot. of hand-wringing in the industry, rug-pulling, "Oh my god, we lost this. great model, and what does that mean if. I build my models on top of Anthropic? Can I trust them? Yada yada.".

And this was just days after the model. was launched on June 9th. How this all started seems to be that. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, who owns a large. Amazon is a an early investor in. Anthropic and they own a large portion. of it. He had told the administration. that there was a security vulnerability. in Fable 5 that they were able to bypass. to jailbreak the guardrails that. Anthropic put on it. Dario said the jailbreak wasn't serious. There seems to be some finger pointing. and back and forth. And Dario said it was narrow.

Separately, Semaphore, a publication, like an email publication, reported that. the White House acted. partially over suspicion that a. China-linked group had access to. Methuselah and they weren't supposed to. Wired reported that this group was South. Korea's SK Telecom. Now you're saying, "Hey, how does South Korea have anything. to do with China?" Well, they have a. long-standing or there are long-standing. allegations that SK has a relationship. with China. The White House previously. ordered Anthropic to revoke SK Telecom's. access to Methuselah. They're kind of.

like the Verizon, 70% market share for. telecom in South Korea. According to the. Washington Post, Anthropic did not. initially disclose it had given. Methuselah to SK Telecom. And this happened before all the export. controls, quote, "badly damaged. officials' confidence in the company's. ability to safeguard sensitive. technology." Anthropic says the White. House never raised the Chinese access in. the Fable jailbreak conversations. There's a lot of finger-pointing and. perhaps.

Nobody is closer to this except the. principals and you, David Sacks. So, tell us, what is going on here? Is this. politics and political between Anthropic. and the administration? Is this a. misunderstanding? Or is this, you know, the future of what's to come. as these models become more powerful? >> Well, let me give you an update based on. what I learned. This would have been. last Friday and Saturday. So, by that. point I got a readout from various folks.

at the White House about what happened. around the time that that letter was. sent to Anthropic. And I then summarize. what I learned in that long post on X. And no one told me what to say. I just listened to these various. officials explain themselves. I also. heard from let's say some of the private. companies who were involved in this. And. all I asked was, "Listen, I think this. context would be helpful to provide.". They said, "Sure, you can publish it.". So, I posted my summary of all that's. happening. And whether you agree with. the decisions of those officials or not,

I do think that my post provides a. window into exactly what they were. thinking at that time. And what this. comes down to is a couple of things. So, first of all, like you said, Dario came. to Washington a few months ago. This is. back in April and basically said that he. had created a cyber weapon called. Mythos. And he spiked the cortisol. level, got everyone really worried. And there was some truth to it in terms. of the sense that this model had. advanced cyber capabilities, but he got.

everybody very focused on this problem. So, mission accomplished. They then had. this pilot program for Mythos, this. trusted partners program. And as the. Washington Post reported, Anthropic. expanded the program to something like. 50 companies or more without consulting. the White House. And according to the. Washington Post, I can't confirm I don't. have any firsthand knowledge of this, but I don't have any reason to. to question the the Washington Post's. reporting on this. They did share Mythos.

with a company that. the White House believes it should not. have been shared with. So, think about. that. They're sharing these capabilities. that Dario himself has said is a cyber. weapon. with. parties that the White House and really. we're talking about the national. security officials believe might have. connections to China. >> That's SK Telecom according these. reports. >> going to say who it was. I know that's. been reported. I don't have any. first-hand knowledge of that. >> Okay. >> I'm just reporting what was in the. Washington Post. But, you have to.

understand that that's the context. So, first of all, you got Anthropic. effectively conducting its own foreign. policy here, expanding the Mythos. preview to groups that the White House. didn't have any knowledge of. And then. once they found out, the White House, you know, this is. really the role of what the White House. wanted is, "Look, we have classified. information that you don't have. We know. that there are certain groups that. shouldn't be getting this.". And Anthropic expanded the pilot without. consulting, which is again sort of.

bewildering because the whole point of. what they were supposedly doing by. trying to get this pre-approval regime. was to consult with the government. So, really that was the predicate for this. And apparently, again, this is according. to the Washington Post, that's when. conversations started about whether a. model like Mythos needed to be export. controlled. >> Okay. >> Then you have the launch of Fable, which. is basically Mythos with guardrails. Again, if those guardrails fail, then you have a cyber weapon being. released to the public. And it wasn't.

the White House who came to the. conclusion that the guardrails failed. It was private companies who were. testing. Fable, testing those guardrails. And as. has been publicly reported, one of them. was Anthropic's largest shareholder. and cloud partner. >> Amazon. >> Well, again, I'm not going to confirm, but I think we all can read the. publications, okay? >> Yeah. >> So, again, normally I wouldn't mention. names at all, but this is all widely. reported, okay? In any event,

they. I think tried to convey their findings. to Anthropic. I think there was some. sort of breakdown in communication. I. don't really understand, but they felt. the need to escalate it to the White. House. And it's almost like a whistleblower, okay? Um because they have no reason to. lie about this. I mean, again, they are. Anthropic is a. >> reason to Yeah, I mean, they're. partners, so that's even reason to. support Anthropic. Obviously, Sachs, they would have told Anthropic first, but the fact that Andy Jassy got.

involved in this at all means somebody. on the team must have said, "Hey, on the. security team at Amazon who has to host. these models and hey, this is. something that could be a liability for. us, Amazon, and could be a national. security threat." That's why Andy Jassy. made that call because somebody put that. into a Slack room somewhere or. documented it. >> Oh, no, it wasn't just. They don't do things like that based on. a Slack room, okay? They had. >> in the security team reported it, right? >> Amazon Amazon is part of Mythos preview.

and they are also testing Fable, remember? They've got the biggest cloud. to protect. We're talking about AWS. They've got teams banging on this and. making sure the guardrails are safe. And. as has been publicly reported, they came. to the conclusion that there was a. jailbreak and that this was serious. security problem. So, they then escalate. to the White House and. again, then this is where my summary. takes over based on me hearing firsthand. from these officials. They tried to call. Anthropic, they tried to call Dario, and. there were a number of conversations and.

the TLDR of it is Dario refused, meaning. refused their request to take down Fable. until this jailbreak could be fixed. And again, the White House was really. just, I think, bewildered and confused. by that because again, it's so off-brand. for Anthropic. They claim to be the AI. safety company. And yet, here, the White. House is reacting to credible. information about a major security. threat from Anthropic's own partner, and instead of basically saying, "Yes,

we'll react on this right away." they. get the Heisman. I mean, just imagine this call. Apparently, again, reportedly, the. Treasury Secretary of the United States. called Dario personally. I mean, why wouldn't this be a 5-minute. call? Why wouldn't Dario just say, "Yes, sir. We take security more seriously. than anybody else. We'll fix the. problem. Thank you for taking the time. to call us out of your busy day. We're. going to handle it right now." Click. And instead of doing that, you know, what the administration heard, and I'm. not saying maybe Dario didn't mean to. communicate this, but he sort of.

pedantically argued that this jailbreak. wasn't really a serious issue. And we. know that to be true because, you don't. have to take the administration's word. for it. Dario then published a blog post. that basically conveyed the idea that, well, not all jailbreaks are that bad, and trying to differentiate between good. jailbreaks and bad jailbreaks. >> Minor ones, major ones. >> Minor ones, major ones, whatever. You know, again, very off-brand for. them. I didn't know until now that that. was the case. And remember, this is all. downstream of the fact that Dario primed.

all of these officials to view Mythos as. a cyber weapon, and to view, therefore, Fable as a cyber weapon if the. guardrails failed. And they already had. problems with the Mythos preview being. overextended to parties that they didn't. approve of. So, look, I think maybe. there's room in here to give Dario some. grace. Maybe he didn't interpret this. correctly, what have you. But, this was. the way that the administration. perceived the situation that they were.

in as of whatever that day was a week. ago, last Thursday. And they reacted by sending the export. control letter because they wanted Fable. to come down until the guardrails were. put in place. Now, we're in a situation. where Anthropic is negotiating with the. government to. try and fix the situation. Look, once. you're in one of these situations, it's. always harder. to extricate yourself than to avoid. getting in them in the first place. because the trust is broken. The trust.

is now gone. And look, I hope this does get resolved. as quickly as possible because I don't. view what the administration did as a. policy making exercise. Some people are. saying that this export control letter. is now a new type of policy. Now the. government has to approve every model. release. I don't think that was the. intention. I think this was a reaction. by the administration to a credible. report of a national security threat and. they felt that they had no. alternative but to react immediately. with the tools that they had available.

to themselves. So, I hope that this problem gets fixed. and then we have a serious deliberative. policy conversation about what the right. hoops should be for models that are. cyber weapons. >> And reviewing these models, which yeah, let's pause there cuz we're going to get. into model reviews and what's the best. way to do that. Chamath, what's your. take on this situation. uh in terms of. maybe a little bit of. I don't know, your handicapping of the. situation with the relationship with.

Amazon. I think that's kind of an. interesting angle or if you have a. different angle you want to take. >> I think the leaders of the Frontier Labs. leave a lot to be desired. >> Okay. >> I think what we're seeing is a. consistent pattern of evasiveness and. immaturity. And I think that that does a huge. disservice to the entire. movement of AI. Maybe to connect the. dots between this and what Freeburg. said. I couldn't agree more with what he said.

The key. to a vibrant life. is rooted in economic mobility and I. think AI is the grand leveler. It is the. thing that can enable. everyone to have. unique amounts of economic mobility. because they are unencumbered. to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, which is an. incredibly positive sum. view of the world, but I think it's. accurate.

We have to live in this constant. doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it. holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates. mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already. decaying in the prestige that it held in. American society. When I first came here. in 2001, it was a place of misfits that. were good-intentioned, that were doing.

the right thing, that didn't take. themselves too seriously, that in. success wasn't ostentatious, that kind. of kept their head down. We built important things. Then, we. veered away from that, and we started. building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've. potentially started to rebuild important. things again, but we have this veneer of. negativity and mistrust that are created. in large part because we just cannot get. our together. And.

the leaders of the frontier labs are. public enemy number one. And so, this entire episode is yet. another proof point that you just can't. trust these guys. That's number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible. opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to. convince governments all around the. world, not just America,

that they should be the gatekeeper. A, you can't trust these guys. B, these. models are all over the place. C, let us. be the ones that provision them to the. world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been. now talking about KYC for a while. Right? Who are these customers? Do they. have identification? Why are they. allowed to run these models? What are. they prompting? Let's keep them so that. there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become. issues.

The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue. because of how they've handled all of. this up until now. And what does that create? Now that. creates an oligopoly for AI, the most. powerful, economically leveling. instrument we've ever seen, in the hands. of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who. by the way would make an incredibly. compelling argument, and they would be. right. And the only counterfactual to it would. be, well, trust us guys, it should. actually be much more open in a far more. distributed environment. If can you.

imagine the cost and the complexity if. you ask the neoscaler. to build. the same robust KYC or the same VPC. infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft. and Google have spent decades investing. trillions of dollars in? It's an. impossibility, Jason. So, you can take. all of those data centers off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market. off the map. All of this was preventable. So, instead. of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem.

giving a tool. that is the fundamental unlock for. humans, we are now going to debate. gatekeeping and duopoly versus. oligopoly. They have created a total mess, and it's. a shame. >> So, instead of people, just to summarize. that, instead of people being able to. use the model they want from the. provider they want, you're going to have. to put in your driver's license, your. tax ID, your social security number, whatever it is. >> to Amazon Web Services or Google. >> If you have to put in your driver's.

license to buy fertilizer, you're sure. as will have to put in your. driver's license to use Fable 5, which. is the precursor to know how to use. fertilizer to make the bomb. >> Yeah, as we talked about last week. >> Sorry, last thing. Total own goal. And. then what does it do? We in Silicon. Valley, yet again, look like people that have just. optimized for our own selves. We take. ourselves seriously. We take nobody else. seriously, we're not willing to play. ball, it's unserious, it's immature, and. it does not help society at large.

>> Okay, Freebird, there's been some talk. about political tribalism here. And I'll let you take this one. Anthropic, the only company that. doesn't seem to show up when President. Trump has CEOs at the White House. Backed by Reid Hoffman, who funded the. lawfare against the White House, cheating uh O'Carroll lawsuit, this. lawsuit, that lawsuit. There's major. beef between the left and the right, and. Anthropic's in the middle of it. Is this. the White House treating.

Anthropic differently, and do they have. it out for Anthropic, and Anthropic is. basically handing him the ability uh. to. take these kind of actions. In other. words, is this. political instead of pragmatic and. practical in your mind? >> Well, I mean, I think that. there there's no regulatory framework. today, and so. antagonizing the government. to create a regulatory framework, and.

then feeling antagonized when they. regulate you, just seems a little bit. weird, and Anthropic seems to be the. only one doing that. So, I don't know if. it's. a political motivation as much as it is. like some strange set of behaviors from. Anthropic that that's motivating this. perception. Look, I think at the end of the day, we're all losers. if the government is going to be picking. winners and losers in AI. And we're all losers if we all have to.

be restricted on accessing these tools. At the end of the day, like I've said. before, you know, an entire AI model can fit on. a USB drive. And you just need to have good hardware. to run it. And the value of that model is. time-bound, because at some point a. better model is going to come around. So, my point being, I think we're all. losers if there's one stack. that one company owns the whole thing. and we all have to put in our ID and the. government decides who's the winner and.

who's the loser. None of us are going to. be winners in that sense. That's why I. think that there's currently. a natural market force for two things. One is more open source. and second is a fragmentation of the AI. stack. If you go back to the 1960s, IBM was the. predominant provider of mainframe. computers. And I don't know if you guys remember. this or know this, but like at the time. IBM did the whole stack. They actually. made the chips. >> Yep. >> So, all of the um you know, the I think.

it was solid logic technology chips that. IBM created were were made in-house. They made the hardware. They made the. operating system. They also made the. software. And this was the case through the whole. mainframe technology era. that IBM was the monopoly. They had the. whole thing. And then ultimately the. government had to intervene to get them. to disaggregate the software layer and. that's what actually started the. independent software vendor era, which. is when the software industry really. started. Was after the government said,

"Hey, we shouldn't have one company that. has the whole stack in computing.". Then we get to the '80s. and that's when everything. disaggregated. Then IBM started buying. the Intel chip for the personal. computer. They had their own OS, but. ultimately Microsoft came along and made. a better OS. And then this entire. proliferation of the software stack with. independent vendors took off. And I. think that that ultimately is what. allowed this industry to progress. The. productivity boom that arose from both. mainframe computing and desktop PCs.

was because of this disaggregation that. happened. I think the same is likely. going to have to happen with these AI. companies. And you know, I'm not sure that what. we're looking at today as being kind of. some oligopoly of three or four. businesses is really where we're going. to stand. I think the equivalent on the. hardware side is there's going to be. multiple chip vendors. There's also. going to be multiple clouds. There's. also going to be multiple models that. run on the clouds. People are also going. to run models locally. They're going to. use different software factories. They're not just going to use Anthropic. They're going to use tools like. Salesforce and, you know, 80 90 and.

other things. They're going to run. different applications on top of it that. are going to be purpose-built or. custom-built. So, I think there's very. likely kind of a diffusion that's. happening right now. If it doesn't. happen, it's going to be pretty nasty, but I just think the market forces are. so strong for a diffusion of each layer. in the stack finding its way to the. cheapest, the more available, the more. accessible partner vendors that we're. very likely going to see these kind of, you know, handful of oligopolies kind of. break down a little bit. >> Yeah. >> And so, that's my that's my take on.

this. I'm not sure. I'm not sure that I'm not sure there's. going to be a political. capture that's going to happen. It just. seems very unlikely. >> I I I'm going to steal man. for the for the good of the pod and also. a little bit of my personal belief here. I think if we were to take Anthropic's. name out of their series of behaviors in. how they handled the release of Mythos, let's just say we put Grok in there, OpenAI, or Gemini. Gemini's a good one, Google. They're not totally in the uh. in either camp and it's a company that's.

been around for a long time. So, Gemini. comes out with a model. When they test it, it's incredible at. hacking and cyber warfare. And they say, you know what? This is incredible. It's. super powerful. We're going to limit it to 50 partners. And those 50 partners include Microsoft, etc. They happen to have SK Telecom in. there. They make a mistake. They put. them in there. And we looked at them and we said, "Hey, holding the model for 30 days while they. test it." We'd say, "Thumbs up. Good. move.". And then, one of their partners, Amazon, says uh "Hey,

we were able to jailbreak this." And. they say, "Okay, we're going to. put a couple guardrails on this when we. put it out, or let's just say second. phase after they give it to their 50. partners in control beta. They say we're. going to open it to the public, but. we're going to watch every single thing. you do. I think David, you said this is. a privacy issue. It's pretty standard. actually for when you release something. like this to monitor it for the first 30. days. If you don't want to be have. people looking at the results, then. don't join the beta. Keep using 4.8, don't use the newest one. And so you'd say thumbs up to that as.

well. Hey, they're giving it. only to logged in customers. And if. somebody does something dangerous, like. they try to get it to do. nuclear weapons, or last week when I. asked it about fertilizer regulation, it. dropped me out of the model, right? We. would give a thumbs up to that. And then. if we were asked, hey by the government. to take it down for anybody outside the. United States, and we said, you know. what? We'll take it down for everybody. Probably give a thumbs up to that too, if Gemini did it. So there is a definite. backdrop of beef between Anthropic and.

this administration. And if you look at. the Reid Hoffman connection, you look at. Dario who refuses to participate. The. people who go work at Anthropic are the. people who hate Trump, who hate the. Trump administration. They're opting. into that. If you look at OpenAI and. Grok, those are the people who are. largely pro-Trump, uh including Greg. Brockman and his wife who gave 25. million to Trump. So there's a political. underpinning here. Zach, you may not be. able to get into this, I understand. that. But that's part of what's going on. here. I think Anthropic actually did a. really good job of rolling out this.

model and being conservative about it. I think their comms are the problem. Every time Dario talks, it's too much. talking, and there's too much. fear-mongering. So somebody's got to fix. the comms over there to your point, Chamath, because. the whole industry is going to need to. be regulated, and I think the industry. needs to regulate themselves. That's the. key to this. We need to have a set of. tests that Google, Microsoft, Amazon all. agree to, Elon. Hey, these are the. things we should test, and they should.

self-certify each model before asking. the government, which doesn't understand. the models, to certify them. The. industry should have an industry. certification like they do for countless. other things. I've talked about the MPAA. and the video game industry. We should. just self-certify. It's the simplest. thing in the world to do, and then we. could release the models ourselves. without the government getting involved. Anybody else have any thoughts on this. before we go on to our next topic? >> Well, let me just respond to this. accusation. You're saying that this is. somehow politically motivated. There's.

just That's just not true. Look, there. are Anthropic aligned influencers who. are trying to spread the story that all. of this is basically a beef between me. and Anthropic. They're trying to say. that somehow I did this, which obviously. is untrue. I don't have the power to do. it. I'm not a day-to-day employee of the. White House, and I only got the read out. of this once the letter was sent. So, you know, I wasn't involved. Secretary. of War Pete Hoekstra, he wasn't. involved. People are trying to make it. sound like this is a beef with. the Department of War. Just not true. This happened as a result of the things.

I mentioned, which is they got a report. of a jailbreak. Dario had the chance to. fix it. He basically said no. Maybe. that's not the way he thought he was. communicating, but that's what the. administration heard. Dario doubled down. that blog post and that had the prior. history of expanding. the Mythos preview to. at least one company that the. administration felt was a national. security threat. That's the reason it. happened. It has nothing to do with the. beef. And by the way, it was the people. in the administration who were most.

sympathetic to Dario and Anthropic who. wanted to reset this relationship after. the Department of War, and then. Dario basically blew it. >> Yeah, that's the. >> people. So, look, I mean, you can just make. stuff up if you want and say. >> not making it up. Just, you know, I take. offense to that, Sachs, because it's. your guy Pete Hoekstra who was doing. tweets like this 3 months ago. Department of War kicked Anthropic out. out building forever. Every passing day. proves why this was the right move. I'm. not making anything up here. There's. serious beef between these folks. If.

you're saying that like this has nothing. to do with this, read the tweet. >> That was after the letter was sent. Check the the timestamp. >> it. No, no, it's totally fine. There is. beef between Anthropic and the. administration. To say there's not is. just silly. >> I didn't say there wasn't a prior. history. I'm just saying that that. wasn't the reason why this happened. This was not a dispute between Anthropic. and Department of War. This was not a. dispute between Anthropic and me. We. were not the parties who were involved. >> involved in it. I I didn't say that. >> But neither was Department of War. Now,

what Heggstad's tweet reflects is he. feels vindicated. There's a sense of vindication that, "Hey, we had a really difficult time. with these guys when we did a contract. negotiation. People may have thought. that we were the difficult ones. In. fact, we said they were difficult and. communicated in a strange way, and now. everybody else can see it, too.". So, I think what Heggstad is saying. there is like, "Hey, we told you so.". But he did not make the decision here. This had nothing to do with it.

And look at the timestamp of that. It. was after all this whole series of. events went down. >> If I'm a shareholder in Anthropic, I would have told Dario to show up every. time Trump had the CEOs over there, and. I would have told somebody in that. management team to drop a 10 25. million-dollar check into some ballroom. or some America, you know, PAC, just. like Greg did at OpenAI. >> He really didn't need to do that. All he. needed to do is that when a cabinet. secretary calls you and says that we.

have a credible national security threat. reported to us by one of your own most. trusted partners, that he take it. seriously. >> I mean, he took it down. Well, how more. seriously can you take it than taking. the whole thing down? >> He didn't take it down until after they. got the letter, which was the whole. point. >> Yeah. Anyway, can I jump in here? >> Please, jump in. Yeah. >> I had Claude. read Machines of Loving Grace and AI. policy on The Exponential. And then I. asked it to do. >> What is that? >> Uh those are his two long-form.

essays. >> Dario's? Dario's. Just Just to be clear. for the audience. >> Yeah. And and I asked it to do a. psychological analysis. And. Well, no. I mean I mean I'm not joking. I mean I think it's important. You know, and. use these as insights into his. personality and give me a psychological. analysis of him based on these as well. as based on the current facts on the. ground with Mythos. Be truthful. Don't protect simply because you are an. Anthropic model. And then I asked it to. refine through the lens of EA movement.

And tell me if there's any psychological. leanings. Do you want me to read to you? >> EA movement, just so people know, is the. accelerator movement to accelerate. society and technology as opposed to. decelerate. Okay. I think people. understand. Yeah, let's hear what it. said. >> Okay, two paragraphs. >> Delusions of grandeur? >> [laughter]. >> No, well, let me let me No, I don't I. don't I don't I'm not saying it to make. fun of him. Look, he's built an. incredible business. The shareholders. are are doing phenomenally well. I think. the revenue run rate of this business. continues to accelerate.

All of it's incredible. But I want to understand this person I. am paying millions of dollars. And so, you know, I just want to understand. >> Here we go. >> Okay. He distrusts other labs, positioning them as racing recklessly. He distrusts authoritarian states. because he says they will weaponize AI. He distrusts markets to distribute the. gains. He distrusts institutions to move fast. enough, and post-Mythos distrusts the. government to wield power, {quote}. transparently and fairly. That's a very. long list of untrustworthy actors. The.

list of trustworthy ones is. conspicuously short, and it has a. suspicious tendency to resolve towards. people who reason the way I do operating. under the rules I helped design. When. your safety framework requires that. someone hold the keys and your analysis. keeps concluding the other key holders. can't be trusted, you've built a machine. that outputs me, no matter what you feed. it. EAC would call that a god complex. The. more precise term is epistemic. exceptionalism. Not that I am superior, but more my reasoning is the. load-bearing one.

And the failure of others to reach my. conclusions is evidence of their. corruption or so on, it's not of my. error. That's the genuinely concerning pattern. and it's worth naming plainly because. it's the engine of the dangerous. version. Once you believe your judgment. is the uncorruptible reference point, every conflict gets recoded. Government. overreach isn't powerful actors have. competing interests and I lost, it. becomes they failed to be transparent. and fair. Losing the Pentagon fight. isn't a negotiation he misplayed, it's. evidence the system runs on leverage.

instead of reason. The mythos collision is we shipped a. dangerous capability and a hostile state. reacted predictably. It's a misunderstanding. The word his company actually used. Notice that misunderstanding presumes. that if everyone simply understood. correctly, they'd agree with him. That. word choice under stress is the closest. thing in the public record to the tell. It's not megalomania, it's the quieter, more defensible feeling conviction that.

disagreement is downstream of error. I. thought that was really interesting. >> I mean. >> Well, I think I think it's like super. accurate. I mean, look, there's no question that Anthropic's. whole mantra, and actually Ben Thompson. pointed this out in one of his pieces, is that they believe that AI is super. dangerous and only they. are virtuous enough to basically control. the negatives of it. I mean, that is. basically their view on it. >> They're the Jedi. They're the Jedi. They. believe that they will bring balance to. the universe and that they are the ones.

who can adjudicate all of these rulings. Yes, they believe they're superior to. everyone else, which is why they are a. magnet for talent. >> Now, what I would say is I don't think. that they have a particular problem with. the Trump administration per se. What I. would say is they got spoiled by the. Biden administration because they had. totally captured the Biden. administration and the proof of that is. the fact that the leaders of the Biden. administration's AI policy, not just one. of them, but all of them went to go work.

in Anthropic like the minute the Biden. administration was over. I'm talking. about officials who were in charge of AI. for the NSC, the ones who were in charge. of the new AI Safety Institute, which. was something that Anthropic basically. set up under the Biden administration. The person who was my predecessor. effectively is AI's are. They all went. to go work at Anthropic. >> There's no politics going on here except. it's incredibly tribal. Okay? >> No, I just think that they got used to. the fact they they I mean they were.

incredibly organized for a startup and. prioritized government affairs from an. early stage, maybe before any other AI. company. And I think Dario went to Washington. very early on and convinced key. officials in the Biden administration of. this idea that AI was extremely. dangerous and needed to be controlled by. the government in some sort of like. merger between the government and then a. very small number of hand-selected. companies, two or three of them. It was. that message that Marc Andreessen heard,

which is what caused Remember this when. he went to go meet with the government. and they said, "Don't waste your time. investing in different AI companies. We're going to anoint the winners. It's. only going to be a couple of them. We're. going to create a cartel.". I think the way that Anthropic describes. it is that they describe competition. between AI companies as a dangerous race. condition. Meaning they all just start racing. towards AGI and therefore safety falls. by the wayside and they want to. centralize and control. They see. competition as a nefarious force, so.

they want centralization. They. effectively want to create a cartel and. that is their view of AI safety. Now, you can see how they could see it in. their language as being virtuous, but if. you see it from the point of view of. what's really happening, which is. they're trying to create a monopoly or. duopoly or cartel, it's incredibly. self-serving. And that is the danger. And I do think. that, you know, a fundamental. philosophical question is whether you. think competition is a good force or a. bad force. In my opinion, competition is. a good force. It's what protects. consumers. It gives consumers.

choice. It also brings out the best in. competitors and that's regulatory. capture. >> the power, too, right? You don't have. one person who you're dependent on. >> yes, and it has a greater chance of. leading to decentralization. I think centralization is the greatest. threat of AI. Right? You don't want it to become a. totalitarian force. So, there there's a. fundamental ideological difference here, but look, you have to say Dario was. incredibly successful. at resetting the conversation with. Mythos. You go back to I think it was.

April. and they had just been kicked out of. Department of War because of that. unsuccessful contract negotiation. And. then all of a sudden they come to. Washington and declare they've invented. this cyber weapon. And they basically. freaked everyone out and they got. everyone to basically go along with. their idea of some sort of government. approval regime. And it's only because I. think of their own. I don't know, you could say hubris. >> Hubris or delusion. >> it. Yeah, their delusions or hubris and. they misplayed it and it ended up.

getting kicked out under their own. nascent pre-approval regime. >> Hey, uh Friedberg, just one last. question for you. If we do tip over into. superintelligence and it becomes like. cataclysmic for humanity. and we look back on this conversation, what would have been the right thing to. do, Pym, for the government? >> Again, there's this important force that. needs to continue to maintain its. strength, which is to. avoid the natural instinct to control. this stuff.

This This happened with the desktop. computing revolution and the mainframe. computing revolution. Do you guys know. there were like. articles published in Newsweek and New. York Times in 1961. that talked about the demise of the. workforce because of the computer. They. said we've now automated everything. Humans are irrelevant. No one will have. a job. The workforce will go away. It. was an existential threat in the media. at that time. And what happened? The. mainframe computer drove productivity.

Every individual that worked was able to. do 100 times more work. Then the same. thing happened with the desktop. computer. And that also enabled economic. mobility and it enabled productivity. gains. It enabled new industries. And. everyone said when that happened, this. is the end of the workforce. No one's. going to be able to get a job anymore. Everyone's getting replaced. It's over. We've got to retrain our entire. workforce. In fact, the federal. government did this deal in the early. '80s. They spent hundreds of millions of. dollars in workforce training programs.

that literally did nothing. And it was. all about, "Oh my god, we got to get our. workforce ready to transition to the. desktop computer industry." You know. what ended up happening? People figured. out. >> Yeah. >> that difficult to turn on a Windows PC, right? >> And companies figured out how to help. employees navigate and transition to. higher levels of productivity by taking. advantage of this new technology and. these new tools. The same thing is going. to happen here. So this whole notion of. AGI wipes out everything and this is the. end conclusion. There's a deep arrogance. to technologists.

>> Yeah. >> arrogance and we know it. It's what. drives all of us. But that arrogance. always leads to these existential. conclusions. This will cure all cancer. This will solve all disease. This will. eradicate all jobs. None of us And by. the way, no one's immune to this. arrogant. From Elon to Sam to Dario to. all of us. We all assume that this time. is different and everything's about to. change completely. And you know what? It. doesn't. We're all part of this. long-term continuum of technological and. productivity improvements driven by. human ingenuity which unlocks human.

potential and gives humans more capacity. to do more and it's awesome and. there's no job loss and narrative just. you know end of the world and that is. driving us all into an insane frenzy. Everyone needs to chill the out and. just let technology do what it does. >> when these companies need to stop doom. trolling. They need to stop doom. trolling. Do you see that in your Times. op-ed? Look, this is all downstream. This is all downstream of the fact that. these AI CEOs have been scaring the. daylights out of the public with respect. to AI. It was totally unnecessary. And.

by by the way, J Kai, I just want to say. one other thing which is I am not happy. about this result. I'm not happy about. the fact that Anthropic is in this. predicament. Why? Cuz I don't like the. precedent. You know, I hope this does. not become presidential. I don't want. policy being made out of these types of. emergencies. I trust it won't be. I hope. this won't become the basis for policy. I hope it's a one-off. You think they. should regulate themselves? As I've been saying. If you go back to. April, here's the thing that's really. crazy, okay? I just saw that Dario did.

this interview with Bloomberg, you know, Emily Chang and he said that by not. releasing Mythos in April, the company. suffered massively commercially. You. know, he's acting like he's doing this. great and noble thing for humanity, this. great sacrifice. The truth is that if he. had released Mythos with no guardrails. in April, he would have exposed the. company to massive legal exposure. because thousands of companies would. have gotten hacked and it would have. been very easy to say that was a. foreseeable consequence of releasing.

Mythos with no safety features, no. guardrails. Look, right now Meta is. being sued. They just lost a. multi-million dollar verdict because a. user accused them of body shaming. Meta. and Google are both being deluged with. product liability lawsuits right now. So, you're telling me that it was this. great sacrifice for humanity that you. didn't release Mythos when it was. patently unsafe back in April? of course. you had to include the safety features. Of course you would have exposed. yourself to liability that could have. put you out of business. That is just.

good business practice. That is. corporate responsibility. You shouldn't. deserve this giant pat on the back, and. you didn't need to go to Washington, freak everybody out like this. I mean, you should have quietly done it. You. should have quietly. >> it is. It's what it is. >> You could have quietly gone to the NSA. and said, "Listen, >> They're going to get kneecapped by the. hyperscalers. It's a clear lane for them. to say, "Let us be your trusted. partners." And by the way, the. hyperscalers, if you look at their. balance sheets, the hyperscalers are out. over their ski tips. They have trillions. of dollars of on-balance sheet and. off-balance sheet exposure to AI.

The best thing that they can do to. underwrite all of that money is to. kneecap the frontier labs and play. gatekeeper. Charge a toll, take a tax. It is. business 101. >> They're going to say that they're the. adult supervision. >> the way, it's regulatory capture 101. Yes. That's not regulatory capture. Yeah. >> Well, they're creating a market. opportunity for themselves because these. companies have doom trolled their way. into it. They. >> They've doom trolled their way into it. >> They want the public master to trust. them. >> That's what I'm saying. Regulatory. capture is when you surreptitiously in.

the dead of night swoop into Washington. and introduce some bill as a Christmas. tree ornament in a Christmas tree bill. This is literally the exact opposite. with the same outcome. I I agree with. you, Jason. Which is you bumble. your way into getting kneecapped by. everybody around you. >> No, no, it's I guess that analogy would. be they literally walked themselves into. prison and handed the hyperscalers the. keys and were like, "Please lock us up.". >> They closed They closed the door. They're like, >> the door themselves. They locked it. They threw the keys out the window. Yes, we're locking ourselves up.

>> All right, the Iran war might be ending. after 110 days. President Trump has. announced for the 37th time that the war. has ended. And that the initial agreement on June. 15th. will be codified. A lot of details here, a lot of unknowns. Conflict began. obviously [clears throat] on February. 28th. Formal signing happens Friday, June 19th in Geneva. Deal was mediated. by Pakistan. Extends the ceasefire for 60 days. Includes a Lebanon ceasefire. US gets.

the Strait of Hormuz reopening, which it. was open before the war, obviously. Iran. commits to not developing nuclear. weapons. Iran agrees to destroy its. stockpile of enriched uranium under IAEA. supervision and that they will freeze. its nuclear program at current levels. for 60 days. Iran gets all sanctions. lifted. And $300 billion. in reconstruction. So, we spent 100, 200. billion dollars blowing the place up and.

we and our partners in the Gulf are. going to spend 300 billion. >> No, we're not we're not on the hook for. a dime, J.K. >> Okay, I was just saying there's some. people in the Gulf who are going to be. involved in this and we'll get into it. Access to Iran's going to get access to. their frozen assets. And uh the US is going to remove its. forces from the region after the final. deal. A lot of stuff not defined yet will be. deferred uh like Israel's sign-on to. this deal. And uh bunch of spicy comments happening.

there. And Iran's nuclear enrichment going. forward, that's not resolved. Iran's. ballistic missile program, that's kind. of important and that's also not yet. resolved. I'll stop here. Obviously, there's a lot in play. Many people said. the reason to vote for Trump was because. he would never start wars. Started a. couple. What's your take on where we're at. today, Sachs? >> Well, I think this deal is a tremendous. achievement for the president. I think. that it was very difficult to get. I. think the Iranians are not easy to.

negotiate with. >> You'd think. >> Let's review this deal. Number one, it. reopens the Strait of Hormuz. That means. all the oil will flow and all the other. vital materials that are necessary for. the global economy. So, that's number. one. Number two, we have a commitment. from them not to pursue a nuclear. program and to collect all of the. nuclear materials. Number three, there's a ceasefire of the. war on all the different fronts. Four, this will not cost us a dime. There is a. reconstruction fund, but we're not. paying for it. I don't see why that's a. problem for us. >> Who's paying for it?

>> I guess it's something that the Iranians. will do in combination with the Gulf. states, but it's not the US is not on. the hook for that money. We're not. paying a dime. And then lastly, this. could lead to a rapprochement Iran, which I think could be a good thing cuz. I don't think we need to be at war with. that country forever. And look, what is the alternative to. this deal? I'm seeing a lot of people. It's easy to take potshots and criticize. the deal, but what is the alternative to. this? I'm hearing neocons who basically. want us to put ground troops in.

and try and effectuate a regime change. and Iran. This is what I'm hearing. I. heard John Podhoretz say this. I'm. hearing other neocons say this. I mean, are you serious? Are we really going to. escalate this war by putting ground. troops in? Who exactly do you want to go. fight? What I heard John Podhoretz say. is we have a volunteer army, so they. signed up for this. No, they didn't. They signed up to protect America not to. go charging into Iran, which is. basically a mountain fortress. I've. heard estimates it would take over a. million troops and even then it might. not be successful. We sent half a.

million to Iraq and Iran is three times. bigger as a country and it's a mountain. fortress. So, that would be a suicide. mission. That would be insane. Nobody. wants that. I'm not sending my kids to. fight that war. You don't want to send. your kids to fight that war. If John. Podhoretz and the neocons want to do it, let them send their kids and their. family. If Reza Pahlavi wants to go to Beverly. Hills and muster an army from his legion. of supporters, let him try and do that. I don't think they will sign up for it. I think they're living too well in.

Beverly Hills. Okay? Nobody wants to. fight that war. That is the alternative. here. Okay? So, if we're not going to. send in ground troops, and we're not going to continue the. bombing cuz what's the point? We already. hit every We already flattened every. military target above ground in that. country. So, what is the point of. continuing bombing. >> Sax, is the permit a deal? >> Then we might as well hold on. If my. point is if we're not going to send in. ground troops cuz it makes no sense, we're not going to continue the bombing. cuz it makes no sense, then we might as. well try what's behind door number. three, which is a deal here.

that will try to create a peace. Remember, we're only at. of this, but let's give peace a chance. here. I don't understand these people. who just want this war to go on forever. Haven't we tried that before? The. forever wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We're really going to sign up for. another one of those? I don't think so. So, look, it's easy for people to take. pot shots at the president here, but I. think this is by far the best of all the. alternatives. >> Sax, the long-term issue has been the.

enrichment of uranium to the point that. it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Is Is it part of the deal that all that. enriched uranium that we do know there's. a stockpile of gets removed from the. country? Cuz if that goes, I personally feel very good about let. the citizens deal with what they have to. deal with. >> That's what they've said. This is This. is part of the MOU. They will not only. agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon, they will give up their nuclear. material. This enriched. >> a big deal. If all that enriched uranium. comes out of the country, I think it's a. very big deal because even if they.

restarted the program, even if they. resourced the equipment, rebuilt the intelligence to do it, etc., etc., it's going to take years to a. decade to 15 years plus to build enough. enriched uranium to build a nuclear. weapon. That would kind of be the natural. setback, if you will, that provides some. defense for the conditions that we. really care about. I didn't realize that. was in the deal. I thought the deal was. just that they would make a quote. commitment to stopping a program, but if. all that enriched uranium's coming out, that's a really big deal. Well, they. still have to define it. You know,

again, this is at the MOU stage. This is. at the level of high-level principles. They have to define exactly how that. program's going to work, but what they. get in exchange is relief from the. sanctions. And they get a a more. normalized relationship with the US. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> There's an incentive there for them. You. know, if they're willing to basically. give that up. >> any take here or you want to check in or. not? >> I think the market's going to the moon. >> The market's [laughter] going to the. >> Uh I'll just add, I'm glad if this. uh gets consummated and it was a huge.

blunder for Trump to do this. And obviously he's trying to get out of. it, shouldn't have ever done it, but. here we are and I hope it resolves and I. hope the people of Iran are free. eventually. >> worth it, J Cal, to have gone through. what we went through over the last. couple of months if all of the Iranian. enriched uranium is gone, their missiles. are are depleted and they have no. capacity to enrich uranium again? >> I mean. just just looking at like if you just. put this all together summarily and. said, "Hey, like there was this big war. and the stuff that happened and all the. It's a great question. And the loss of. life and and like suddenly this this.

real risk of nuclear. >> As I've said from the beginning of this, we don't have complete information. So, you know, four venture capitalists, capital allocators, entrepreneurs can. speculate all they want, but we don't. see what Trump sees, right? So, I'll. I'll I'll You have to be humble enough. to know we don't know what information. he had in all of this, but the trimming. of the grass, the the hedging, you know, of the garden approach that Israel had. been taking all this time, that was the. right approach. Isolating dictators, waiting them out is always the better. approach than starting full-scale wars. with them because you don't know what.

could happen in an escalation. So, simply not worth the risk. Much better. to just send the air troops in and clean. it up. And and we did not need to, you. know, go collect this. uh you know, material obviously cuz we. have these bunker busters and we can. just slam it every X number of months. and that would have been a much better. approach. Just like we've contained. North Korea for all this time and you. know, we contain other dictators with. weapons. >> North Korea hasn't had. >> What are you talking about? North Korea.

has a nuke. >> No, no, but we've contained them. And we. actually did have this discussion with. Graham Allison about, "Hey, why didn't we contain that one when we. had a chance?". That was a mistake by other presidencies. to to allow them to get this far. And. then once they have it, it's really. hard. And in this case, it was working. very well. Every 18 months, we bombed. the facilities. It was fine. We didn't. need to start a full-scale war. And. we're probably going to just wind up. where we were at the start of all this. But I hope that at some point the people. of Iran are free. That that's my, you.

know, true hope. But people have to. we we can't enforce democracy in the. Middle East. We've learned that over and. over and over again. The people have to. take. you know, they have to lead their own. revolution. We can't facilitate it. All right. Listen, another amazing. episode of the All-In podcast for. the Sultan of Science, the dictator, and the Rain Man, yeah, David Sacks. I. am the world's greatest moderator, and. we'll see you next time. Bye-bye. Love. you, boys. >> Bye-bye.

>> [music]. >> You let your winners ride. >> Rain Man, David Sacks. >> And I said, "We open sourced it to the. fans, and they've just gone crazy with. [music] it.". >> Love you, Sacks. >> Nice queen of quinoa. >> Let let your. >> [music]. >> winners ride. >> Besties are back. >> That is my new driveway. >> [music]. >> to your driveway, Sacks. >> Oh, man.

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