E155: In conversation with Tucker Carlson, plus OpenAI chaos explained

(0:00) Bestie intros! Tucker Carlson joins the show (0:59) Tucker's departure from Fox News (10:49) The state of American society and the importance of rediscovering national alignment (30:53) Why prosperity begets self-destruction, climate change, immigration (59:48) Thoughts on the current political landscape and presidential candidates (1:09:13) Media control, the importance of free speech platforms, Tucker's future, reacting to Elon's viral moment at the NYT's DealBook Summit (1:33:56) Post-interview debrief (1:41:49) Understanding the chaos at OpenAI Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://twitter.com/Jason https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow Tucker: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: Tucker Carlson segment links: https://twitter.com/talkrealopinion/status/1728139279019188257 https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1729991837958414573 https://twitter.com/hansmahncke/status/1730019598064390597 OpenAI segment links: https://openai.com/blog/sam-altman-returns-as-ceo-openai-has-a-new-initial-board https://twitter.com/btaylor/status/1730030765482938521 https://twitter.com/chamath/status/1726351777581449627 https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22 https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-ceo-sam-altman-hawaii-estate-napa-san-francisco-2023-11 http://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html https://openai.com/our-structure

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  This is Sax's big daddy.

• 0:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There he is.

• 0:02Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, there's Tucker. Oh, look at the smile on Sax's face.

• 0:06David Sacks?

  This is the greatest day in the history of the All In Podcast.

• 0:09Jason Calacanis?

  Look at how happy Sax is.

• 0:14Tucker Carlson?

  By the way, I'm not ashamed of that.

• 0:16Jason Calacanis?

  Look at Sax with his smile on.

• 0:18Tucker Carlson?

  I'm honored.

• 0:19Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, whoa. He's getting it out quickly.

• 0:24David Sacks?

  How threatened do you feel right now? This is the highest rated host in cable history. This is the world's true greatest moderator.

• 0:31Jason Calacanis?

  Exactly. No doubt, no doubt.

• 0:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sax, where is this in relation to your marriage and the birth of your children? Don't ask.

• 0:38David Sacks?

  It's right up there.

• 0:39Jason Calacanis?

  Up there.

• 0:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  He's like, what children?

• 0:40David Sacks?

  It is for me.

• 0:59Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody, we've got an amazing guest for you today here on the All In Podcast. Sax, his dream has come true. Tucker Carlson is with us today. You know Tucker, he was the number one TV host for much of the past decade, including last year, when, shockingly, he was fired from Fox News on April 24th. Reason for the firing, it's never been pinned down, but maybe we'll get into it today. And we're going to find out what is motivating a post-Fox News Tucker, who has obviously launched a show on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. He's done 42 episodes and counting. He's had everybody from Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Dave Portnoy,

• 1:41Jason Calacanis?

  and the newly elected president of Argentina on the program. So, welcome to the All In Podcast, Tucker Carlson.

• 1:51Tucker Carlson?

  Thank you for having me. It is, it is a legit honor to be here.

• 1:55Jason Calacanis?

  Two-part question to kick us off here. First, have you figured out why you were fired from Fox? And let's get into that a bit.

• 2:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And second, given that you were the number one host for much of the past decade, and I think probably in the top five highest paid of all time, what's motivating you now? What's the mission here as an independent journalist? Take those two questions, whichever order you like.

• 2:19Tucker Carlson?

  I don't know why I was fired. I mean, it kind of is an Agatha Christie story. There are like so many suspects, you know what I mean? But I don't know, I was never told, I can only speculate. There were a lot of different things going on. I had a lot of opinions that were unpopular, you know, with people who might have influenced my show getting canceled, so I really don't know. I will say, you know, right after it happened, people said, "Well, how can they fire the top guy?" Because that's what it is. I'm certainly not the first high-rated host to get fired. It's not only about ratings. There are a lot of different factors. It's a big company you all have worked for and run big companies, and you know. There's a lot of complicated stuff going on, and it's never exactly clear, you know, why

• 3:04Tucker Carlson?

  things happen the way they do. But I was not shocked by it. I mean, I was shocked by it in a short-term sense. I didn't expect to have my show canceled that morning. But I was not shocked at all when I thought about it for a minute. I'd expected that. You know, you can't kind of give the finger to everybody and persist in a corporate job. So, no hard feelings. And in fact, I said that on the call when I received the news. It's not my company, and I never felt like I had a right to be on the air. I was working at the pleasure of the family that runs the company, who treated me very well, and they wanted me off, and so I was off.

• 3:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Did you ever have moments where somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, "Advertiser XYZ is getting uncomfortable," or "We're trying to land this new advertiser," and they want you to shape things in one way? Did you ever feel that pressure? Or is that just a thing that is kind of like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist?

• 3:59Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, well, it not only exists, it defines news coverage, especially on pharma. You know, because pharma is the biggest advertiser in television, as I know you know, and so, for sure. I mean, if Pfizer is sponsoring your show, you're not going to question the vax. I mean, it's kind of that simple. So absolutely, and of course, that's why they're the biggest advertiser, so they can shape news coverage. I mean, that's the point. But I personally never had a single person say to me, "Don't say this." That I recall, I haven't thought about it too much, but that certainly, I was there 14 years and I didn't have that experience regularly or at all, really, that I can remember. And I think, you know, my producers may have been told that, but it didn't ever get to

• 4:39Tucker Carlson?

  me because I was always really clear, which is, I always said out loud to the supervisors there, you know, I work for your company, I don't own this network, all I can control is what I say. If you don't like what I say, don't have me on TV. But as long as I'm on TV, I'm gonna say what I think is true. And in a million cases, I said only part of what I think, not because of my employer, but just because you shouldn't actually say everything you think. I mean, I have some crackpot views too, or I have resentments that I didn't want to work out on the air. I mean, I did, you know, you're straining yourself and you want to, as you do in your personal life. But on no question of principle, did I ever pull back, because I just, I wouldn't do that. And again, I was just super clear. If you don't like what I'm saying, take me off the air. But I'm not gonna, you know, toe

• 5:24Tucker Carlson?

  a line. And because I was so clear about that, I just think they didn't think it was worth having some kind of dispute with me. And to their great credit, for the time that I was there, and I said this many times in public, like I took positions on the Ukraine war, on the COVID vaccine, on the COVID lockdowns, among other issues that I think, you know, I've been vindicated on pretty conclusively, on the origins of COVID. And all of those are super unpopular. On January 6th, which was so hated at the company where I worked, that people, a number of people, including on-air people, four that I can think of, resigned in protest over my, over me suggesting that actually it was more complicated than it looked. And there were a bunch of federal agents in the crowd. How can you say that?

• 6:07Tucker Carlson?

  Are you claiming a false flag? Well, no, not, wouldn't use that phrase, but like, this is something weird going on here. Well, I've been vindicated on that. That sounds like I'm bragging. I'm not. I'm just stating factually that I said things that were truly hated by a lot of the people who worked there, and they let me keep saying them. So, it's kinda hard to complain, really, at this point, right? Again, it's not my company.

• 6:29David Sacks?

  Just from a business standpoint, I think it's weird for a company to fire their top performer, and to do so without giving any notes. I mean, if any of us had a superstar executive, or a superstar engineer, like a 100x engineer.

• 6:46David Sacks?

  Working at one of our companies and like day in and day out, they were, you know, hitting every milestone and crushing it. Like if you had a problem with them, you would give them a no. You would just like try to say, hey, can we just like, so I just think from like a business standpoint, it's so weird. It just seems like self-destructive and I think it was. I mean, their ratings really cratered in the wake

• 7:07Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 7:08David Sacks?

  of making this change. Maybe they've come back a little bit, but I don't think it's ever been the same. I just think it's a crazy way to operate a business. So yeah, it's their right. I mean, they can do whatever they want, but I don't understand it as a way of doing business.

• 7:19Tucker Carlson?

  Well, I don't understand it as a way of living either. I mean, you know, everybody in the course of life, whether as a parent or an employer or just a friend, has to deliver uncomfortable news or disagree with someone that you deal with and you have a moral obligation to explain the disagreement. You can't just, you know, levy the penalty and leave it at that. You have to explain why you're doing that. And, and I think that's, it's incumbent on us morally to do that. I wasn't that mad about it actually, because I know the rules of that particular business, which are really harsh. And, and I've been in it, you know, my whole life. And so I've seen a lot of people as talented or more talented than I meet bad ends. And in, you know, for reasons that I thought were not justified. And, and I know them all really well. So I, you, you work in a business like that, you know what

• 8:04Tucker Carlson?

  it is. You know, the black car is going to show up at 3am and tow you to the Lubyanka and that's just what it is. You know what I mean? You can't kind of whine about it, you know?

• 8:12Jason Calacanis?

  Well, how much of it was the, you know, this is a family owned business?

• 8:17Tucker Carlson?

  Mm hmm.

• 8:18Jason Calacanis?

  And the patriarch, obviously pioneered opinion based, you know, journalism slash entertainment commentary. And the younger ones maybe were on the other side of the political aisle and maybe were not as, I don't know, cutthroat, or maybe didn't share the same philosophy of their dad. What was your relationship like with the, the new generation with Rupert, et cetera? And how much did that play into it, do you think?

• 8:44Tucker Carlson?

  Well, my, my relationship with the father and son who were directly involved in, in that company was from my perspective, very strong. And I will say this about the Murdochs, they're Very polite. I mean, they're really kind of very Anglo. Almost elaborately polite, in a way that I'm not mocking, I'm complimenting. And they're not confrontational, they're not nasty in the way that they deal with people directly. And I prefer that as sort of a way of communicating with people. So I got along with them very, very well. I always liked them, and they were very nice to me, elaborately nice to me, and always gave me assurances of my right to say what I thought was true. And so, again, I can only speculate. I will say, though, and you see this with Trump especially,

• 9:29Tucker Carlson?

  I don't think I'm anywhere near as divisive as Trump. Obviously, I'm not as powerful as Trump, I'm not the figure Trump is. But one thing that maybe Trump and I have in common is we're really disliked by a certain set of people. You know, affluent people, highly educated people, people who work at NGOs, government finance, you know, really kind of hate a certain brand of politics. So it's not being conservative. You can be conservative in that sort of, you know, "I work at Cato," or "Heritage," or, you know, "We need to get back to free trade," or whatever, that kind of thing. The Reaganite foreign policy, that's all fine. But if you start asking questions like, "Well, why doesn't our country act in its own interest?" There's something about that that's uniquely offensive to them, to that whole class of people. Now, I could not have more contempt or loathing for those people.

• 10:12Tucker Carlson?

  Having grown up among them, I know how repulsive they are. So, you know, their hatred of me, I wear as a badge of honor, it actually makes me happy. But it's hard to take. I would say, I mean, again, I'm just speculating in my specific case, but I know more broadly, like, it's very hard to have lunch at the Four Seasons in Jackson during the winter because there's some private equity wife who's gonna scream at you on your way to the men's room. Because that world hates you. And so if you live in that world and you're employing someone like me, you know, you hear about it. I guess that's my point, you hear about it. Like, "What? That guy's a Nazi!" What's the deal with that?

• 10:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I want to actually pull this thread. I would love your perspective on the state of American society. Just less on the political spectrum of Republican versus Democrat. But just just observe for us, Tucker. What do you see in American society? Where are we as a society? What has happened? What is happening?

• 11:06Tucker Carlson?

  Well, this isn't an eight hour podcast. I could actually give you my very lengthy theories and views on that. But I will just say one thing that's I've been thinking about a lot recently. I just have been had my college roommate staying at my house. And, you know, we're, of course, the same age, known each other our whole adult lives. He's been very successful and he lives in a, you know, an enclave of very, very successful people. And and so we're familiar with this culture. And we were talking about American and he's from an immigrant family. So he's got a kind of broader perspective, I would argue, a broader perspective on like America. He's 54, as I am. And we were talking about how, obviously, this is not a democracy. It's not even a sort of decent facsimile of a democracy. It's to call it a democracy is like ridiculous, actually.

• 11:50Tucker Carlson?

  But it's even worse than that. Our politics and not just our politics, but our public conversation reflects the very specific and parochial concerns of a tiny, tiny group of people, which is middle aged, affluent women who tend to be very angry and tend to mostly with their husbands, but probably for other reasons, too, and exercise this like wildly disproportionate power over what we can talk about and think about and the rules that the rest of us live by. It's just kind of amazing. And he happens to live in Jackson, Wyoming. So and I go there, you know, to ski and to fish. And I have for a very long time.

• 12:30Tucker Carlson?

  And I always say to him, I can't go anymore because I yelled at at lunch over my elk chili or in the lift line or whatever, or at the, you know, West Side Market. Literally, a relative of mine yelled at me while buying bananas in the, you know, the West Side Market she lives there. And I'm thinking, what is it about this group of people that hates me so much? When, again, I know them really well and related in some cases to them. So. And I'm not quite sure, but I just, I see our politics and our concerns, which if you take three steps back are like insanely picky yun. Like, trans black lives matter. Well, I never said they didn't. But like, if that's your main public policy objective to celebrate trans black lives

• 13:13Tucker Carlson?

  in a country of 360 million people, it's got a lot of big problems. You are not seeing the whole picture. So like, what is that? And what it is, again, is the disproportionate influence of a class of people and their neuroses. I wouldn't even say policy concerns, but like there are things they're worried about and their weird, personal tics and like the results of years of therapy and SSRIs on their brains. Like, that kind of controls our whole conversation. And my friend was saying, because he's really smart. He's like, "Yeah, but the good news is, this can't last, because it's just too stupid." And at some point, very soon, the country's going to revert to the place that all countries begin, which is in a conversation about things that matter. Like, who comprises the population? Do we have enough water?

• 13:58Tucker Carlson?

  Where are we on energy, exactly? How are we going to manage these complex relationships with other countries? Like, the things that, you know, the stuff of government, the stuff of...

• 14:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Resources.

• 14:08Tucker Carlson?

  Well, of course, resources, but like, just the basic questions that should dominate the consciousness of any, of any country and should dominate our public conversation. It's like, our public obsessions are getting increasingly irrelevant, actually. Increasingly, it's like crazy.

• 14:24David Sacks?

  As our problems get bigger.

• 14:25Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, and the problems get bigger.

• 14:27David Sacks?

  The conversation becomes more inane as the problems get bigger.

• 14:30Tucker Carlson?

  Thank you, exactly.

• 14:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So, when you look at that, that cohort's disproportionate impact. And then you translate it, for example, last night, there was, um, I guess like a almost riot protest when folks were trying to light the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center, I guess. And there was like a huge pro Hamas, I think, somebody, check me out if this is wrong, protest, and then people were pushing back on the cops and all of this stuff. And all these folks were trying to do was just light the Christmas tree. Can you connect the dots? How does that cohort get to...

• 15:01Tucker Carlson?

  No, but it's actually a branch from the same tree. Christmas tree in this case. Because that whole conversation, while I think it's interesting and I think it's geopolitically significant and I've been to those countries and I know people there, so I'm like interested in it. And there's a lot to care about and be interested in. But the displacement of all of our public passions onto a conflict in a foreign country, however important that conflict may be, really kind of tells you a lot. It's like, in other words, yeah, I care what's happening between Israel and Hamas. I have views on it, which are probably pretty mainstream views, whatever, I don't have any very interesting views on it. But it's a little weird for your entire country, thousands of miles away, to be so preoccupied

• 15:46Tucker Carlson?

  with that conflict that they miss big, history-changing events happening like in their own country. And I think that's again, a species of the same problem. We are unable to... The problems that confront us are so big that we can't deal with them. And actually, my wife and I had this conversation the other night. I was for years a magazine writer and I have to file every Friday. I worked for Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard. And obviously, I regret that. But it was interesting at the time. And I have to file the story every week. And I'd stay up all night, because I'm very lazy and I put stuff off. And I'd stay up every Thursday night, all night. And I had to run a call. It's going to the printing press in Pennsylvania, this was back when it was in print. And you've got to file it. And right around 8:30 a.m. on Friday morning, I would have this overwhelming urge to rearrange

• 16:30Tucker Carlson?

  the books on my shelves in my library by title or by subject. I'd like have all these weird kind of like librarian fantasies about rearranging books, which on a normal day, like, why would you do that? And better things to do. But as my problems mounted and I couldn't like write the lead I wanted, I would transfer all my anxiety onto something I felt I could control or that was of lower stakes, less consequence. And I think that's kind of what we're seeing a little bit. Like, we care more about foreign wars and trans lives as like, the obvious things that hold our society together start to fall apart. Because like, how do you even deal with that? I don't know if I'm being very articulate, but I think that's what's happening.

• 17:10Jason Calacanis?

  Makes perfect sense. What do you put on the top of that list of things we should be focused on, Tucker?

• 17:15Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, I mean, but from my perspective, by far the most important...

• 17:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, if you were to rank 1, 2, 3, this is what America needs to put its energy on.

• 17:22Tucker Carlson?

  It's not even close. National cohesion, and by which I mean something specific. What does the majority of the country have in common with one another? Because, look, if... The arc of the last centuries, American history is super, super interesting. So you have this massive influx of immigration. You know, the Ellis Island generation, late 18th, 19th, early 20th century. And it's both good and bad. We only remember the good, but there was a lot of social volatility, like a lot. Like, the mayor of Chicago got shot in his house. There was bombings on Wall Street. Like, the whole, the Wobblies, the anarchists, like, the foot soldiers that were immigrants, working-class European immigrants. And part of the problem was there was a lot of immigrants.

• 18:06Tucker Carlson?

  And, I mean, Sacco and Vanzetti, you know, who shot the clerk in, was it Brockton, Mass? Anyway, it was in Mass, outside Boston. They'd been in the country for just a few years, and they immediately got sucked into radical politics. Well, why was that? Well, because they weren't kind of bought in, or rooted in, or hadn't been fully assimilated into American society. So then you have the First World War, and we basically shut down immigration, and we have this period of settling. Where like, all Americans, let's think through our civic religion, what ties us together. And then that leads into October of 29, and you do have this national crisis that lasts for more than a decade, and we didn't blow up. And we had a successful, you know, the CCC. We like, had these big programs, which, I'll say this as a conservative, kind of worked

• 18:49Tucker Carlson?

  in keeping people fed and focused, gave them purpose, kept the country from collapsing during the Great Depression. If that happened now, when there is no broad agreement on what it means to be an American, no agreement at all on what we all have in common, I don't think we can withstand it, actually. I really don't. And I'm not even convinced it matters as much what that civic religion is, as it does that we have one. If we don't have anything that ties us together, when that day comes, and you know what I mean, when the economic crisis comes, because it's coming, like, what's that gonna look like? It's gonna be very scary. And so that's what I'm most worried about, by far.

• 19:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How do you define national cohesion, I guess, maybe, then? Like, what are the few elements that you think America needs to agree on, as a majority?

• 19:36Tucker Carlson?

  Wake me up from a deep sleep and ask me what it means to be an American. Okay? And then do the same to a thousand other people, and we'll just do a survey on it. And do the majority of those people give the same answer? And if they don't, like, so this is, okay, this, I mean, I have so many theories, God, don't, I'm gonna, I'm gonna control myself, but I would just say one other thing, which is, we overestimate people's ability to metabolize change. It's, you know, I'm not like a strict Darwinist or anything, but I do sort of believe that over time, people adapt to their environment, and that, you know, in us is, you know, most of our abilities are inborn, like, that's just true, sorry, I have dogs, I know that. And people just haven't, you know, the world

• 20:17Tucker Carlson?

  didn't change that much from, you know, 460, or whatever, the Sacking of Rome, until the Renaissance, it just didn't. And then the Industrial Revolution, to now, has been like, such massive change, that it's driving people insane. People can't handle relentless change. And technologists love relentless change, and I like a lot of technologists, a couple are really good friends of mine, but they're anomalies. A lot of them are literally autistic. I'm not attacking them, I'm praising them, but they're different from most people.

• 20:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sacks is on the program right now, Tucker.

• 20:45Tucker Carlson?

  Right, but you know, like, they can handle it, they can, like, they want a world that's totally different from today's world tomorrow, they want that.

• 20:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They thrive in that flux.

• 20:54Tucker Carlson?

  They do.

• 20:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Right.

• 20:56Tucker Carlson?

  But they don't understand, they don't understand how rare they are. And if you impose that on a society... And you don't ever have a period where you pause and let things settle, you will blow up that society. And the Chinese, who I don't admire for many things at all, know this, and I admire that about them. They think that change for its own sake is dangerous. Now, they think it's dangerous to their power, and they're absolutely right. But it's also dangerous just like the idea of a society. What is a society? And so, anyway, I could go on and on and on. But that's my main concern.

• 21:28David Friedberg?

  Let me propose a theory and see if you react to it. I think that there's a big orientation in society where it's constantly about trying to shift the power dynamics, that everyone always feels like they don't have something that someone else has. And that other person that has it, for some reason,

• 21:48David Friedberg?

  is advantaged in a way that, to them, always feels unfair. And everyone feels this way, everyone.

• 21:53Tucker Carlson?

  That's right.

• 21:53David Friedberg?

  You're at the top of the food chain. You feel like someone else has something you don't have, and it's unfair, and the system is set up that way, no matter where you sit. And as a result of that, and by the way, this goes back, I get waxed super philosophical on this stuff, but Buddhism's always had this point that like, the desire that humans have is the one thing that causes all of societal suffering, behavior, everything. But it all comes down to this. It's that you see that someone else has something, you desire it, and then you want to change the dynamic of how the system, how society is organized, to fix that. The thing about technology, if you think back, the catapult gave an advantage to an army that allowed them to win in a war. So did the rifle, so did the nuclear bomb.

• 22:36David Friedberg?

  That ultimately, technology was the enabling force that allowed a rapid shift in power dynamics. And all technology ultimately creates leverage for the creator of the technology initially, and then it diffuses to everyone. But that is perhaps why, this is a theory I have, which is that there's generally pessimism towards technology because it creates unfair advantages that shift the power dynamic too quickly.

• 23:02Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 23:02David Friedberg?

  And too advantageously. And it's also why I think you don't hear a lot of support for technology from most of society, because technology creators are such a small percentage of society.

• 23:12Tucker Carlson?

  So I don't know if that resonates with your point, but for me it's always been like- Well, I think that's really smart and I think it's indisputably true. Absolutely. I will say, you're making an argument, in addition to many other things, against tribalisms, because tribalism accentuates these pre-existing impulses in people, which again, like all impulses, are just inborn. Like, the human nature is immutable, so let's just start there. It cannot be changed. AI will not change human nature. It'll change everything but human nature. And, you know, envy and, you know, the fact that prosperity is a relative measure, above starvation- Totally. So it's like, there's a famous Russian proverb, like, you know, "I've got a cow,

• 23:57Tucker Carlson?

  my neighbor has a cow, he gets a cow, now he has two cows, I kill his cow." Right, totally. Right, it's just, right. So, but tribalism, especially in a country like ours, which as noted, doesn't have a working majority of people with obvious connection to each other, it really, really exacerbates that a lot. And, because it makes it more obvious. So it's not, so all of a sudden, it's not just like, "Hey, the smart kids are richer, they have two cows." It's like, "The Jews are richer, or the Indians are richer, or the whites are richer," or whatever, you know, it's like, just name the group. And, that, once you go down that road, you know, it's, that leads to violence, and mass violence, actually.

• 24:41Jason Calacanis?

  A lot of people listening right now, Tucker, are probably a little bit confused hearing you talk about cohesion of the country, when most people would look at, you know, the tribalism as almost most manifested in cable news. You and Rachel Maddow, every night, were, you know, number one and number two in the ratings, taking either side of the tribe. So, is this something that's evolved and how did your time in cable news inform you to this? Because, most people would say, like, "Wait, isn't Tucker and Rachel, like, isn't that, aren't those the two tribe leaders?"

• 25:14Tucker Carlson?

  I think, I think there are dumb people who think that, but no, here's the difference. My views- Wait, you're talking about me? Oh, no, no, I'm not including you in that. I'm not including you, no, I'm not including you. No, no, no, no. If the shoe fits. I'm asking the um, the half of the audience to be clear here. That's such a quick thing to say, I'm sorry. It's all good, it's all good, Tucker. Why should you be any different than the other panelists?

• 25:38Tucker Carlson?

  No, I love, and not only do I love, I don't always love, but I certainly think that reasoned disagreement is essential. It's the alternative to violence, by the way, that's what that is. Debate and politics are the alternative violence. You get two choices. We're gonna do it by arguing about it, or we're gonna do it by force. Okay, so, so I absolutely think it's essential to debate things. Because if we don't, then we just have to shoot each other, and I'm against that. But, that's very different from tribalism. Because tribalism is based on things that you can't change. So, for example, in 2002, I hosted a show on CNN, and it was the run-up to the war in Iraq. I was uncomfortable with the idea that we would be invading Iraq to respond to an attack

• 26:22Tucker Carlson?

  on America that had nothing to do with Iraq. I did think that didn't make sense, but, I was sold on the idea, finally, by someone, and I foolishly parroted the Bush administration's line on that. So I was a pro-war person, for a time. Then, I went to Iraq, and I changed my views completely. So I switched sides, completely, and I wound up on the other side, anti-war in Iraq. And that took about a week. I was born a white man, you were born whatever you are, everyone's born whatever they are. That can't change. So if we stoke division along lines that can't be changed, then we're really at a cul-de-sac. Our differences can never be resolved. You will always be what you are, you can't change it, and the same for me.

• 27:05Tucker Carlson?

  And so, those are the things that wind up becoming generational conflicts, civil wars, Rwanda. And so I've always been against that, my entire life, and my entire time on Fox, I argued against that. I think affirmative action is completely, not only immoral, because it's an insult to the idea of America, which is, like, the people who do the best get the most, but, it is also a recipe, over time, for violence. And I made that case, I've made that case every single day, you know, since David and I had lunch 30 years ago. I've never not thought that, I've always had the Dr. Seuss view of race relations, which is, we should de-emphasize race, and elevate...

• 27:47Tucker Carlson?

  You know, merit, achievement, hard work, character, the things that we can control. And, um, and but the other side has gone, and by the way liberals used to agree with me, that used to be a liberal position within my lifetime, and then all of a sudden it became a Nazi position. And, you know, that's just a manipulation of language, but the truth is, on the race stuff, which is what matters over time, if you convince people to hate others on the basis of their race, you've committed a massive sin and you've done a lot to wreck our country, that's coming from the left. I'm sorry, that's just true.

• 28:17David Sacks?

  Just to connect these ideas, I think that is a major source of our division, is one of the reasons why people have a hard time saying what it means to be an American is because there are dueling visions of what it means to be an American. The left has been trying to change or rewrite American history. So for example, the key year in American history, the founding of the nation was not 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, it was 1619, right? This is the base of the whole 1619 project of the New York Times is that the founding of the nation began with the importation of slavery to the new world. That was the key year. And so I think there's been an effort for a long time on the part of the left to rewrite what it means to be an American and to rewrite American history.

• 29:00David Sacks?

  It's actually, in a weird way, it's the opposite of what Deng Xiaoping did in China, where Deng basically, he flipped the, the doctrine over there from communism to capitalism. He didn't outright declare it, he said that, you know, it doesn't matter whether a cat is, is white or black as long as it catches mice. And they didn't change the name, they didn't change the party, it's still the Chinese Communist Party, they didn't change the flag, but he did a hot swap of the back end to capitalism. And, you know, they changed what the country was about in that economically. It worked out great for them. I think in a similar way in the United States, they haven't changed the flag, they haven't changed the name, but there is an attempt to hot swap the back end of what it means to be an American. And I think this is the root of the conflict.

• 29:45Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, I agree with that completely, and I don't think we've thought through what it means to change. You know, out of many one, to, out of one many, I think that's, we've set ourselves up for something really, really scary, again, for violent conflict. Because I don't see how that resolves itself. Wise people understand this. In a diverse society, pluralistic society, whatever you call it, a society where you've got a lot of different people, a lot of different backgrounds, and shades, and religions, and all this stuff, you need to de-emphasize the things that divide us inherently, and emphasize the things that unite us. Like, that's not hard.

• 30:26Tucker Carlson?

  And it's also so obvious that if you're not doing it, my first question is, why are you not doing that? I mean, why are you not? And that kind of explains the true loathing that I have for the people in charge on both sides. Because like, if you did that in your household, with your children, your kids would be in rehab, or jail, or dead. It's that obvious. Like, you would never do that to your kids. So why would you do that to your population?

• 30:52David Friedberg?

  Friedberg, you had a question? Well, where does responsibility lie there, Tucker? What's the mechanism for doing that? Because we often, and I find, in conversations, everyone says, "The government should." And I often question why the government should anything in my life, in my social settings, in how I live, how I do business.

• 31:17David Friedberg?

  Does the government, the federal government in the United States, have a role and responsibility to do what you're suggesting we need to do in the United States? Or is it the media? Or is it social leaders? Or is it business leaders? Or is it local governments? Who is responsible ultimately for creating the social cohesion necessary for the US to enter a new era of prosperity? And why is that the right group to be responsible?

• 31:47Tucker Carlson?

  Well, look, I would say, well, it's a great question, and I would say new era of prosperity, I don't think that's really the goal. We have prosperity. And I think it's a real question as to whether people want prosperity. But do people want prosperity? I mean, I think there's actually a lot of evidence that human beings sort of hate prosperity, actually. We're not designed to be prosperous. And the second we are, we invent climate crises to make us less prosperous. I mean, that's really what that is, right? But anyway, leaving that aside.

• 32:18Tucker Carlson?

  It's incumbent on all of us, anyone with authority, anyone with a voice, anyone with money. And it's really kind of as simple, and I do think, you know, government is kind of the last to fall in line. It's really as simple as making things socially unacceptable. We certainly see, I grew up in a world where people smoked on airplanes. Okay, now that was banned by the FAA, but it was also made totally socially unacceptable. You couldn't light a cigarette in someone's kitchen. You just wouldn't think to do that. In the same way that you wouldn't think to give the middle finger to an old lady. Which is not actually illegal, but nobody would do that because it's so appalling in the minds of everybody. And everyone's happy to say, "What the hell are you doing?" And I feel the same way about the race stuff. It's like, "Oh, you know, race this, race that."

• 33:01Tucker Carlson?

  Someone should say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop that."

• 33:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's part of what you're saying, which I think is, which I really agree with, which is this idea that we have gone, as the human race, okay, from having to make major adaptations over the arc of our evolution as a species. To now, what you're kind of saying is, we're now dealing with all these minor adaptations and it kind of breaks the entire circuitry of the brain. Which is like, before we had to fight to evade the animals, to feed ourselves.

• 33:30Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, exactly.

• 33:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  To build the machine, to all of a sudden go from an agrarian to an industrial, these were huge adaptations. And now we have all of this almost surplus and excess. And it's a little bit of a head scratcher for a lot of people, because now all the adaptations that are left are very minor in shape. Because all of these other things that would other occupy your time, sustenance, survival, resiliency, are taken off the table. I get that. The other part of what you say, which is very Rene Girard, which is like, "Hey, there's all this copying of people and desire. There's going to be violence if we don't figure out how to de-charge it."

• 34:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you think we need to do in order to do that discharge? How do you get these people to stop focusing on the small order bits? And how do we reorganize people to focus on the big order bits? So that we minimize this risk of violence? We minimize the one group of immutable traits fighting another group of immutable traits? How does that happen?

• 34:36Tucker Carlson?

  You know, I'm pretty pessimistic about a country this big. And we say the country. I mean, like, when I talk about the country, I'm talking about people I know or grew up with, or people who speak my language. I mean, the country is so big that something can happen in New Mexico, something big can happen in New Mexico, or San Francisco for that matter, and like, people don't even know. So like, but in general, I would say, um, you know, it's hard to see changing course before we're forced to.

• 35:05Tucker Carlson?

  And so, you know, I do think-

• 35:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You think, basically, there has to be a moment of something that's so egregious that causes a national reconciliation of some kind? Essentially, that says, "Hold on a second."

• 35:17Tucker Carlson?

  You want to know what I really think? Which is like, kind of, crackpot, but I know that it's right?

• 35:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes.

• 35:22Tucker Carlson?

  I do think the problem is prosperity. And I've noticed this as a middle-aged man, as I've gotten older, and I know people who've been successful, in some cases, very successful. And I've noticed that when they succeed, when they get everything they want, they destroy themselves. I've noticed this again and again and again. It's, you are the dog who caught the car. And it's, and actually, it's more than just having idle time. There's something, there's a metaphysical quality. There's, there are factors that I don't understand that are deeper, actually, but I just notice it. There's something about affluence that, over time, convinces people to kill themselves. And you see it, like, in a literal sense, in the euthanasia numbers out of Canada and out of, you know, Western Europe.

• 36:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You see it in a literal sense when you look at, you know, the incidence of diabetes as correlated to GDP.

• 36:11Tucker Carlson?

  That's right. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

• 36:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And you look at these emerging economies, and as GDP cranks, the first thing that happens is heart disease cranks up, and diabetes cranks up, because, to your point, Tucker, they start to enjoy the prosperity of their earned life.

• 36:25Tucker Carlson?

  But they're not enjoying it! That's the thing. The other thing you see is they stop having children, which is a form of suicide. You're not reproducing. You know, I mean, there's no other culture who has left a written record in history that didn't see having children as like the primary, first of all, the primary source of wealth, and not just because they worked on your farm, but because they exist, and so do your genes. So if you start to see every, it's not just a matter of culture. It happens in non-Christian Japan, it happens in post-Christian Spain, it happens in South Korea with a .7 replacement, you know, reproduction rate, .7. So, what is that? And again, it's the same thing.

• 37:08Tucker Carlson?

  It's that affluence kills you. And if you don't believe it, fast for three days. Fasting, by the way, is a feature not just of, you know, Christian history, every religion and every culture that I'm aware of has acknowledged fasting as an important religious ritual. Why is that? Why would foregoing food be so important? Well, try it for three days and experience, you know, your quivering like a tuning fork. You know, your sensitivity just explodes. There's something about eating too much, literally satisfying the most basic need of all, which is for calories, there's something about that that kills you. And there's something about foregoing it that enlightens you. It's like super interesting. So I, I, and I'm, look, there's so much I don't know, I'm the last person you want

• 37:51Tucker Carlson?

  to listen to, these are deeper waters that I'm qualified to wade in, but my senses tell me very, very strongly that the core problem is having too much. And I'm not calling for taking things away, I think the global warming bullshit is bullshit, okay? I mean, obviously it is. Climate crisis, it's propaganda, but it's coming out of, it's also sincere to some extent. It's not just a power grab by Davos, it's more than that. It's people's gut-level sense that we need to have less because this is killing us. And that is real.

• 38:20Jason Calacanis?

  Freiburg is, Tucker said global warming is bullshit, is?

• 38:24David Friedberg?

  I'm just gonna pull up an image for him, I just wanna, I just wanna, I just want his reaction to it.

• 38:28Jason Calacanis?

  Freiburg, so, you just sent that to the Sultan of Science, let's see.

• 38:31David Friedberg?

  No, no, but I, like, no, I think it's, like, just on that topic.

• 38:37David Friedberg?

  You know, data shows temperatures are getting warmer off of a baseline of 500 years and now things get warmer.

• 38:42Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, no, no, I'm so sorry. Can I just make a small correction? No, I'm not saying it's not getting warmer. It seems to be getting warmer. I'm merely saying this whole elaborate theory that humans are causing this rise in temperatures and we know how to reverse it through, say, shutting down, you know, the use of hydrocarbons. Yeah, I mean, and even if that were true, what we're doing to affect those changes shows how fraudulent the whole thing is. I mean, you know the whole arguments, but I'm not actually calling into question that it's changing. Temperatures always change. I live in Maine, which was shaped by the glaciers 10,000 years ago. So like, yeah, we've had some climate change.

• 39:17David Friedberg?

  Do you think that human civilization is not threatened by the change in climate? I just, this is a quick little point, but...

• 39:23Tucker Carlson?

  Do I think, well, sure. I mean, it's threatened in some ways, probably help in other ways. I personally hate hot weather, so, you know, I don't care for it. I think there's quite a bit of evidence that previous, that actually, temperature changes can be much more radical than we think. And I'll just give you one example that no one's ever explained, but you're aware that there are all these woolly mammoths found in Keston Ice in Siberia in the Soviet, you know, early Soviet 1920s expedition to map all of Russia found these things. And at least one stranded expedition ate them, okay? They ate the woolly mammoth because it had been frozen so thoroughly that the, after thousands of years, the meat was still edible.

• 40:02David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 40:02Tucker Carlson?

  Well, the question is like, how did that happen? And I think it was the guy who ran bird's eye frozen food, who was an expert on freezing meat. It's like, wait a second, that weighs X thousand pounds. It would have to be frozen extremely quickly. And I know this from hunting, too. You have to freeze meat very fast to keep it from spoiling.

• 40:21David Friedberg?

  From the bacteria.

• 40:21Tucker Carlson?

  So how did that happen? Well, no, no, for real, though, because it decomposes very, a big animal, if you shoot, say, a moose, or a big deer, or a mule deer, you have to open it up immediately, or the meat will spoil because the bigger it is, the more heat it generates, right? We know that. It's like, okay, so how exactly did hundreds or thousands of large animals get frozen so quickly that the meat is still edible thousands of years later? That's an honest question that no one's ever answered. And the only potential, or even plausible, answer is, temperature changed so fast, it flash froze them. Well, how did that happen? Like, what? No, these are sincere questions.

• 40:58David Friedberg?

  Interesting. I'll look into it. I'll get back to you. I've not heard about this.

• 41:01Tucker Carlson?

  No, no, but like, what is that?

• 41:03David Friedberg?

  Flash frozen. Well, that's interesting.

• 41:05Tucker Carlson?

  No.

• 41:05David Friedberg?

  This reminds me of that Marlon Brando film. You remember where he like goes to an island and eats the like super rare food? It's like a Komodo dragon or something. The Graduate. Matthew Broderick's in it. So good. It's like the expedition to Siberia to eat the flash frozen woolly mammoths to make a good sequel. But it's interesting. I'm gonna look into it. I don't know the answer to how and why.

• 41:24Tucker Carlson?

  But the point is, the climate, here's the point, that we have physical evidence that the climate on Earth within, you know, inside our atmosphere has changed dramatically, so dramatically that it would, you know, kill every person who was affected by it, like a number of times that we know of over the course of the history of the Earth. So like, um, I mean, I think there could, you know, we could be in for actual climate change that killed everybody. That's entirely possible. But the idea that it's the fault of the United States because of, you know, you drive an F-150 is like so absurd, it's like hard to believe anyone takes that seriously. There's like no evidence of that, actually. Sorry.

• 42:01David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I'm generally just an, I'm an optimist about solutions anyway, but, you know, I think human ingenuity has always prevailed. So all this pessimism and catastrophizing. I, I, I do disagree with respect to like, there is science that indicates that there are elements that were kind of affecting things in a, in an adverse way, in a challenging way. But I'm not concerned about the challenges just because of where human technology sits and the things we can do. So I'm, I have a slightly different point of view, but I, I hear you on it. I don't wanna

• 42:32Tucker Carlson?

  Yep.

• 42:32David Friedberg?

  debate the point. Sorry, Chamath. Go ahead.

• 42:33Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, that's a whole nother thing.

• 42:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I just wanna up-level this back to something, because I think if I had to summarize what you're saying is, you're saying, Chamath, our society is too prosperous, and as a result, that prosperity creates um, small fringe issues that dominate, which then creates an inability for us to be cohesive. So then, if we have something that allows us to be forced to be more resilient.

• 42:56Jason Calacanis?

  We will actually wake up from this fever and say, hold on, guys, what are the big issues? Let's really figure out what matters. Let's get organized and let's go after those. And that, both as a healing of the country, but it's almost like our insurance policy. Is that kind of a, is that a fair summary? Okay, if I had to put what you're saying in a box, or is that...

• 43:14Tucker Carlson?

  Well, I would, I would hate ever to seem like I'm looking forward to catastrophe, because I, I'm not. And I, I hope, I hope it doesn't unfold that way.

• 43:23Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, no, you're, you're, I don't think you're saying that, yeah.

• 43:25Tucker Carlson?

  No, I mean, I used to drink too much, and I know a lot of people used to drink too much, and, you know, use drugs or whatever. And some of them didn't get better till they went to jail, you know, as people who drink too much tend to do over time. That never happened to me, and I'm so grateful for it. Like, you don't need to, you know, get to the bottom.

• 43:39Jason Calacanis?

  You don't need to get there, right.

• 43:40Tucker Carlson?

  You don't. I don't think that you do. I'm just, I'm just really worried that we're not even having a conversation about this. And, but I, again, would point to what I said a second ago, but there's something metaphysical here. There's something deeper than just, you know, the, the search for advantage, which is a big motivator among people. But there's something more than that going on. Why are we intentionally wrecking the society? And we are. And I, and I hear people say, well, it's because some people are getting paid. Yeah, it's not really an adequate answer. It's more than that. There's something going on. Like, instinctively, people wanna, some people, want to tear it all down. And I don't think it's necessarily so they can rebuild it to their own advantage.

• 44:22Tucker Carlson?

  I think, like, destruction is the point. And I just watch carefully. And I don't really know what's going on here, but something much deeper than what we're acknowledging is going on here.

• 44:32Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I think it comes back to this point about, I can't get what these other people have. And there's now an insurmountable barrier that I cannot ever get there.

• 44:40David Sacks?

  Yeah, I don't know. I mean, that doesn't explain why, but hold on, that doesn't explain, like, why, for example, Dustin Moskovitz is supporting revolutionary politics and Chesa Boudin and BLM.

• 44:51Jason Calacanis?

  Actually, I think it's a good example, Sax. I think it does. When you have massive abundance, to Chamath's point about the idle mind. You know, Dustin Moskovitz has achieved more than any human could achieve, billions of dollars, and now he's got this surplus. And then whatever, you know, to Tucker's point, whatever he's dealing with personally now becomes this, you know, canvas under which he's gonna deploy that wealth in an outsourced way. I think it actually does explain it.

• 45:16David Sacks?

  It fits more with, like, luxury beliefs than with the idea that, like, scarcity or envy is somehow driving it.

• 45:23Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, but yes, so those are luxury beliefs. And he's got a huge bankroll. Therefore, it has an outsized impact, as sort of Tucker has been saying.

• 45:30David Friedberg?

  No, I think the luxury point is, once you reach a certain point, your attention can then shift to morality. When you're starving in a street and you need to feed your children.

• 45:41Jason Calacanis?

  Correct.

• 45:42David Friedberg?

  You're not focusing your whole day on the morality and better treatment of others in the world and extending morality to the rest of the world. But when you have that luxury, you have to focus your attention in that sense. I do think that there's this large element that the term equality gets recast into every aspect of society, which ultimately leads to this general point of view of Marxism, which is everyone has to have an equal outcome versus an equal opportunity. And that's where the prosperity takes this.

• 46:12Tucker Carlson?

  But I think I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think it's maybe more profound than that. I mean, you're absolutely right that only societies that have reached a certain point can afford to think about certain things. You don't see, you know, hunter-gather societies don't debate effective altruism because they're looking for roots. Okay, so I agree with that.

• 46:28David Friedberg?

  Yep.

• 46:29Tucker Carlson?

  However, if you look at the behavior of, you know, some of the richest people in our society, and I can't speak to Dustin Moskowitz, but I have this, you know, I know people like that. What they're funding are not exactly luxury beliefs. It's they're like funding destruction, actually. And so like, previous generations of liberal rich people funded things like public libraries, summer camps for poor kids. Remember, the New York Times used to have these fundraisers, like Fresh Air Fund or whatever. And people made fun of it. I always kind of liked that, like you have extra money and like, you know, help the poor kids. You know, whether it works or not, we can debate, but like, I get it. But Dustin Moskowitz, if you're Dustin Moskowitz or any, I don't mean to pick on him, but any like really rich person, and you're at Baker's Bay or some discovery property that, you know, you and your billionaire friends go to,

• 47:14Tucker Carlson?

  it might occur to you like, why not build one of these for like all the poor kids? Only poor black kids get to go to this resort for a week. And that might be, it might work, it might not work. Like, all of American social, the history of American social reform is kind of species of that. Like, we're gonna help poor people by doing this or that. That's not what they're doing. It's like, hey, poor people, here's some more crack pipes. And like, we're, it's immoral to criticize your drug addiction. And what we need are more black people selling weed. Or it's cool to set fires, and we can't criticize you for burning down Wendy's. Like, what? That is not the same thing. That is super dark. There's no even possibility of uplift or advancement. It's just the opposite. They know it, these are smart people. So like, what are we looking at? Seriously.

• 47:58Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, well, Tucker, he's, in Dustin's mind, I'm sure he believes he's doing the right thing.

• 48:03David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 48:04Jason Calacanis?

  I get it.

• 48:05David Sacks?

  He thinks he's funding social justice. I think like Soros would be an even better example, right? Where, like, it's hard to argue that what he's funding is not extremely destructive. So the revolutionary politics are not somehow coming from below the way you would expect a revolution to normally happen. They're being imposed from above by some of the biggest winners in our society. And that is weird, that is a contradiction.

• 48:27Jason Calacanis?

  They're not being thoughtful, yeah. It is, it is a bizarre outcome. Let's.

• 48:31Tucker Carlson?

  It's exactly what you'd expect. And it's exactly what happened in the Bolshevik revolution. I mean, half of the Romanoff household, you know, Nicholas II, who was murdered with his wife and children in the basement, as you know, by the Bolsheviks. His extended household supported the Bolsheviks. Rich people, who are a small minority, by the way. There are a million different revolutionary groups. At the end of the First World War in Russia, clearly there was going to be a change. Clearly the monarchy was doomed. And there were a lot of different options. And the most radical, crazy nihilistic atheistic option was the Bolsheviks. And they had the support of the rich people. And like, including the Tsar's family. So like, what is that? It's the same thing. Always the same thing. It's the people with the most have the strongest desire to kill themselves and their society. That's just true.

• 49:15Jason Calacanis?

  It's an interesting theory. I mean, there are some people who are very thoughtful, right? You have Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos who are thinking about philanthropy in a very thoughtful way. Now, they can make mistakes, of course, but they're thinking, hey, where's the most suffering? How do I work backwards from mosquito tents to, you know, vaccines or whatever, you know, we perceive is, or they perceive is the most suffering they can relieve in the world. So it does seem like it can go either way.

• 49:36David Friedberg?

  Tucker, do you think it's because most people that get very wealthy, very fast, feel like it was unfair? And they feel guilty and then they have to like destroy the system that got them there?

• 49:48Tucker Carlson?

  I think there's a lot, I think that's such a deep point, though, because, and you, I know that, you know, you live among people, I mean, you're familiar with this world, so, and only someone who is could say that, because you're absolutely right. Rich people are not all the same. If you meet someone who made his money incrementally over time, he's much less likely to have the desire, you know, you may not agree with him on everything, he may be a good person, a bad person, but he doesn't want to tear it down. And he doesn't feel especially guilty for what he has. And I have found, just a non-political point, but as I get older, I want to spend less time with people who hate themselves, because they're not capable of loving other people. Like, that's not a good place to start, actually, as a person, to hate yourself or feel super guilty. It really isn't. You don't end up helping others when you feel that way. But when you find people who inherited

• 50:33Tucker Carlson?

  a lot of money, we never talk about that. It's a huge problem in this country. I'm not, I'm not arguing for the death tax at all, but I'm just saying, as an observation, there are awful, there's a huge class of people with massive inherited wealth, and they're almost all horrible. Not all of them, I mean, I know, you know, very well, I know some of them, and they're fine. Some of them are great. But as a class, they're awful. And they don't help at all. And they're also super annoying and dumb. And I think it's the well, no, it's just true, and everyone knows it's true.

• 51:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're about to do that for tens of millions of Americans, right? You know, like, we're about to go, the largest generation of wealth transfer beyond imagination. We're talking trillions and trillions and trillions.

• 51:12Tucker Carlson?

  I know.

• 51:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That problem that you just encapsulated, we're going to cascade across tens of millions of Americans.

• 51:18Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 51:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's also happening in Japan.

• 51:20Tucker Carlson?

  I agree.

• 51:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And in Japan, they have a negative growth rate as well. Let's pivot to a topic that...

• 51:26Tucker Carlson?

  Wait, can I ask you, have you been to Japan recently?

• 51:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I was there last year.

• 51:30Tucker Carlson?

  Okay, so, me too. So, I, you know, you always read, like, all the libertarian economists in the Wall Street Journal, they're always like, "Oh, Japan's a disaster, negative growth." And then you go to Japan.

• 51:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, it's the best place you could ever visit. It's my favorite country, just hands down. Did you go to Tokyo? Did you go skiing in the Saco? Where'd you go?

• 51:48Tucker Carlson?

  I went to Kyoto and Tokyo, and I'll be back to ski on the North Island, because it's like, why wouldn't you? It's like the perfect place, right? I never have, but I'm very psyched.

• 51:57Jason Calacanis?

  It's incredible. I went last year. It is like 25 out of 30 days in January and February, it dumps powder and the powder is like dust. It's like makes Utah powder look like heavy. It is insane. I'm going back if you want to go February.

• 52:11David Friedberg?

  I may have a bromance starting with Tucker right now.

• 52:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You guys can have like one clean bed.

• 52:19David Friedberg?

  This is gonna make Sachs lose his mind if Tucker and I go to the second.

• 52:23Tucker Carlson?

  But can I just ask you a question like?

• 52:25Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 52:25Tucker Carlson?

  If Japan is the butt of every joke that economists tell or the focus of the concern of economy, you know, lots of chin tugging and fretting about Japan's negative growth economy, and then you go to Japan and there's literally not one piece of litter and four year olds ride the subway on a company.

• 52:41Jason Calacanis?

  Highest functioned society you could imagine, but yeah, birth rate is going down. That's the only thing that's strange.

• 52:46Tucker Carlson?

  The birth rate is a real thing. I totally agree. That's probably the product of getting atomic bombs dropped on you. And maybe the fact also that like the highest testosterone males flew their planes into US aircraft carriers or whatever. I mean, there's probably a lot of reasons.

• 52:57Jason Calacanis?

  Interesting theory.

• 52:58Tucker Carlson?

  But it, well, that's a real thing, by the way. You kill all the high T males and your society changes. But, but I don't think that we're using the right measurements and I do think that we're taking economists a little more seriously than they deserve because they're not describing what Japan actually is, which is freaking awesome and way more functional than our society despite the massive disparity in growth rates.

• 53:18Jason Calacanis?

  The thing you'll find is every person in Japan takes their job that they're doing as incredibly important and has massive pride in it. That's why when you go there as an American, you're like, wait, wasn't this what America was about? It's, it's, it's really shocking as Americans. You're like, this is what I want society to be. I want the person who works in the subway or the stock market or the newspaper to take their job deadly serious and put their best effort in.

• 53:40Tucker Carlson?

  So why should I care about growth rate? Wait, but hold on though. Why should I care about economic growth, at least as measured in the conventional sense?

• 53:48David Friedberg?

  The only reason is if you have a lot of debt. That's it.

• 53:51Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 53:51David Friedberg?

  Right. If you didn't have all the debt, you don't care about it. You shouldn't care about economic growth rate with respect to the measure of prosperity.

• 53:58Jason Calacanis?

  The strange thing, you know.

• 53:59David Sacks?

  Also, you know, if the pie isn't getting bigger and people aren't doing better, then that does sow the seeds for a revolution. I mean, all this divisiveness will start to explode if people don't feel like their circumstances are getting better off. This is where, I mean, in this, in this one limited way, I guess I'd be in favor of rapid change, which is the technological area. I mean, I'm against revolutionary politics. I'm against that kind of revolutionary change because it almost never works out. But I do think that revolutionary change in the narrow category of technology is ultimately good for us. I know it creates challenges. I know it creates disruption. People do lose their jobs and have to find new ones.

• 54:40David Sacks?

  But it is the basis for American prosperity and the basis for our economy being productive and America having a powerful military and all those things. So I don't know if this is a difference between us, Tucker, but I do think that in this area of technological change, I'm not sort of a dispositional conservative. I mean, this is kind of like Peter Thiel, right? I don't want us to slow down. Actually, I want us to be successful. And it feels like, actually, it's the people on the left who are generally in this camp of wanting to slow us down and mire us in regulations and make it harder to make progress technologically because it's something they don't control.

• 55:18Tucker Carlson?

  I agree with that. I just, I guess the net result is what I care about. I think it's, if you talk to old people, which I, now that I'm getting older and I've talked to, you know, older relatives and stuff, like, what bothers you? And I used to think it was, you know, taking a leak six times a night, but it's really not. The thing that bothers old people I've spoken to, anyway, is the change. It's like they don't, just don't recognize it. And that's really hard for people to deal with. And so all I'm saying, I'm certainly not calling for a halt to technological progress. That would be terrible. All I'm saying is, in tandem with those advancements, should be the concern about people's ability to digest massive change. And like, let's keep some things the same. You know, you just can't change everything.

• 56:02Tucker Carlson?

  It's like bad, it's super bad. So like, maybe we get AI, but let's keep Halloween.

• 56:07Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, so you're arguing for tradition and things that bring people together. This country was built off of immigrants, obviously, and this is one of the most polarizing issues, Tucker, in each election cycle and in the country at large right now. What do you, what is your vision for how American immigration should work here in the 21st century?

• 56:34Tucker Carlson?

  Ideally or right now?

• 56:36Jason Calacanis?

  Right now, and then ideally. Let's start with what would you do right now, short term?

• 56:40Tucker Carlson?

  Well, actually, if you don't mind, I'll quickly invert it and say, of course, the goal is just a rational immigration policy whose purpose is to help your country.

• 56:48Jason Calacanis?

  What would that look like?

• 56:49Tucker Carlson?

  And so, I can see, well, I can see an argument, for example, if you needed, you know, I don't know, there was a time for, the guy who was just saying, my college roommate, my best friend, came to this country from India because both his parents were physicians and there was a lack of physicians with deindustrialization, everyone was moving out of the small towns, and so we expedited the visas of foreign physicians. Most of them were Indians, I think most were Indians. His parents actually came from Africa, but whatever, the point is, they're Indian doctors and they came here and they settled in a little town in Massachusetts, a rural town, dying mill town, and it was great. It was great for them, it was great for the town, the guy became my best friend, I mean, like, that's just, that's what you want, right? We need this and we're gonna, in a very smart, intentional way, try to get it on the world

• 57:33Tucker Carlson?

  market, and we can and we will, and I'm totally for that. What we're doing now is throwing open the doors to anyone who wants to come here from the poorest countries in the world at a scale that we can't possibly digest. So how many people are here illegally working off the books? Some estimates, 60, 70 million, those are real estimates, by the way, not crackpot estimates, but the truth is, we don't know, we have no idea, so we've completely lost control, and we don't know who these people are. I honestly think most of them are here for a better life, I believe that, I think most of them are probably good people, I think most of them agree with my politics, actually, for whatever it's worth. Definitely much more than the unhappy private equity wives do, for sure. The average guy from Nigeria is like, on my side, every Salvadoran agrees with me, so

• 58:16Tucker Carlson?

  I like that, but I also think it's too much, actually. At exactly the moment when native-born Americans' birth rates are tanking, over 100,000 people die of fentanyl ODs, and we're pushing euthanasia on the population, which we are, you're, you're basically, you're saying you have given up on the people who live here, whatever their color or background, and we're just gonna import new people and replace them with new people, that's literally what's happening. And when you say that out loud, they freak out and call you some sort of crazed bigot for saying the word "replacement," but that's what it is, and it's happening in Western Europe, in Ireland particularly, that's what those riots were about. Not that I'm endorsing the rise, but that's what that was. And that's like insane for a government to do to its own people. It's just, it's totally insane.

• 58:59Tucker Carlson?

  And, and more than anything, it is an expression of loathing for the people who live there. It's a dilution of their political power. It's a dilution of their economic power. It's the total destruction of the basic services that they paid for, like schools, hospitals, roads, like those are gone. And so, last thing I'll say is, people say, well, immigrants are coming here looking for a better life, and I believe that, having talked to a lot of immigrants and grown up around them in Southern California, I totally believe that. But the question for government is, am I making the citizens' life better? It's like, no one even thinks that. So is importing people making the life? So when my friend's parents came, both physicians, to the little town, little mill town in New England, his parents made the town better for the people who live there.

• 59:44Tucker Carlson?

  They were the doctors. And they were super successful, actually, and great people.

• 59:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Tucker, can you give us a rundown of the current political landscape? Just tell us, I'm just really curious what you think about RFK, Biden, Trump, Vivek. Maybe like 10, 15 seconds on each.

• 1:00:00Tucker Carlson?

  It's so hard, it's so hard. I mean, uh, I, I mean, the thing that jumps out today, my view changes all the time. I don't think Biden can be the nominee. His only point was to, you know, stop Bernie Sanders, basically, and he's, uh, outlived his usefulness, so I think he'll be, I'm pretty sure he'll be replaced. But, um, as on the, on the Republican side and the independents, you know, it's so hard to know. I'm just mesmerized by the love for Nikki Haley, who's like, the most, and I'm sorry, and like, for example, I saw Jamie Dimon, who I really like and I know, and I have always admired, but when Jamie Dimon starts like free balling on, you know, Nikki Haley and saying nonsensical things with Nikki Haley, I'm like, I want to call him and say, you're humiliating yourself.

• 1:00:45Tucker Carlson?

  First of all, you're way out of your depth, you have no idea what you're talking about. But for another, you're just betraying how completely out of touch you were. And I think Jamie got, and again, I say this with admiration for Jamie Dimon, which is long-held, but like, if you get to a place where you think that Nikki Haley has a shot of getting elected in a free and fair election, like you have no idea what's going on in your own country, it's just embarrassing to say that, super embarrassing.

• 1:01:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Explain to the audience, unpack that. Why is Nikki Haley not there?

• 1:01:10Tucker Carlson?

  Uh, it really, it's not personal. I actually don't care for Nikki Haley as a person, but that's immaterial. Nikki Haley's program, what she stands for, what she believes... Maybe moral or immoral, God will judge. It's not popular with the with the public. And it's super easy to know that.

• 1:01:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Her stance on war specifically, yeah.

• 1:01:27Tucker Carlson?

  Her stance on war and on economics. And and we know that from looking at the Gallup poll, which is a rolling survey of people's attitudes on things. And in an actual democracy, you would see the leading candidates for people who hope to become the leading candidates articulate concerns and lay out views that reflected the concerns of the population who are going to vote them into office.

• 1:01:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Who does that the most? Right now?

• 1:01:50Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, Trump.

• 1:01:51David Sacks?

  Is it fair to say Nikki Haley is basically an unreconstructed Bush Republican?

• 1:01:55Tucker Carlson?

  Yes, yes.

• 1:01:56David Sacks?

  Her views are basically the same views of George W. Bush. She, once again, is in all sorts of new wars. And I don't even think she regrets the forever wars of the Middle East that were so disastrous. I haven't heard one word of criticism from her or remorse that she supported all of those things. And on the economic policies, this is kind of this like corporatism. It's like the whole Trump rebellion never even happened in the Republican Party.

• 1:02:19Tucker Carlson?

  Exactly.

• 1:02:20David Sacks?

  It's just like right back to the past. And the fact that the establishment sort of coalescing around her kind of tells me that as much as I didn't want to believe this, I think that Trump is still the indispensable figure in the Republican Party. Because if you take him away, they're going to revert right back to where they were. They're going to go right back to the factory settings of Republicans, which is Bush Republicanism.

• 1:02:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Tucker, can you just finish the rest of them? RFK, Vivek, Trump.

• 1:02:49Tucker Carlson?

  Well, I mean, I, you know, I know Vivek well personally. And I'm, I'm, it shows that I'm out of touch too. I mean, you know, I'm 54. So I don't have my finger on every pulse. But so I like Vivek, actually. And and but I see these surveys where he's not, you know, he's not doing well and people don't like his personality or whatever. He's, he's a little overbearing. That never bothers me at all. I'm just not put off by that at all. And I'm a little bit confused by why he's not doing better. Again, that's a reflection on, I've just made fun of Jamie Dimon. Here I am doing it myself. Like, why isn't Vivek doing better? I'm sure there are reasons. I just don't. I think his program is solid. I think he's reasonable. I think he's smart. I don't think he has some creepy agenda. So but he's not, he's not doing well. That's just a fact.

• 1:03:34Tucker Carlson?

  Bobby Kennedy, I know quite well and and think a lot of him. And he's a very, I think he's a decent man and a principled person. I think he's smart.

• 1:03:46Tucker Carlson?

  You know, I don't have quite as much confidence in maybe some of the people around him. I'm not, I feel like maybe there are other agendas that he's not aware of. You know, I don't know, I can't assess. But, uh, yeah, so that's what I think of that. And President Trump? Well, I mean, you know, The New York Times had a piece, I think it was Jonathan Swan, who's smart, and had a piece telling you what you already knew, kind of, but proving it with numbers, that Trump became the nominee in August of last year, 2022, when the FBI went through his wife's underwear drawer in his house. Like, that was so insane that even if you're like, "Ah, I can't deal with more Trump," and "He didn't actually do anything," and "Put Jared in charge," you know, like, there are lots of frustrations you could have about Trump if you supported Trump, and you could

• 1:04:31Tucker Carlson?

  be disappointed. But the second the FBI raids his house on a documents charge, and anyone from Washington, as I am, can tell you, that's like insane. Like, every, that's like so common, it's not, if they're charging him for that, that's a joke. Where are the felonies he supposedly committed? I was led to believe he, like, murdered people and buried them in the Meadowlands. Do you know what I mean? Like, that's the best they got when they did that. I know for a fact, and this piece showed it, but I knew it already, a lot of people are like, you know, "I have mixed feelings about Trump," or "I don't want to deal with more Trump drama." But if this is allowed to happen, our system won't continue. That's so outrageous that, I mean, let's just stop lying about it. That's a political prosecution.

• 1:05:13Tucker Carlson?

  You can't have that of the presidential frontrunner. You can't have that. We already did it with Nixon. You can't do that again. And so I think that's the key to his surge. I really do think that. Who's the Democratic nominee if you think Biden's not gonna be? Oh, it's Gavin. Gavin. Gavin, for sure. Well, of course, because he's by far the most evil person in the Democratic Party, and in the end, they just sort of rise to the peak, you know, in oil and water, man. It's just good.

• 1:05:40David Friedberg?

  Tucker, just comment on Gavin vetoing the bill that said that you could kind of remove the parents, remove the child from the parents if the parents don't affirm the transgender rights of the child. That, I think there was a lot of folks who sit in your camp typically, who were shocked and surprised and said, wow, I didn't know Gavin actually, you know, had a span of opinions. And this is interesting to see. I mean, what's, what like?

• 1:06:05Tucker Carlson?

  There's no one I know who thought that. And everyone I know who watched that thought the same thing they thought when he met with Xi, which is, oh, he's, he's going to be the nominee. Of course, that's what that was. I mean, I know, I know Gavin Newsom. And, you know, I think a lot about Gavin Newsom, many different things about Gavin Newsom. But one thing I know for a fact about Gavin Newsom is he has the capacity to be the lie detector test. Gavin Newsom will say anything he needs to say, not like Biden's not like this, actually, whatever Biden's fault, he's not like this, like Biden would, you know, he has like guilt. If he's lying to you, he gets twitchy. Gavin Newsom's palms don't sweat. His respiration doesn't increase. His body temperature doesn't change. Nothing

• 1:06:50Tucker Carlson?

  changes in Gavin Newsom when he lies to your face. And there are not that many people like that, actually. That's a rare quality. Like to lock down the state to keep people's kids from getting an education and to arrest people for surfing and then go have dinner at the French Laundry. Like, most people couldn't do that. They'd just be like,

• 1:07:08David Friedberg?

  You're saying he's a sociopath. He can lie and not care?

• 1:07:11Tucker Carlson?

  I'm not a psychiatrist, but I, so I don't know that, I don't really know the category, and I'm not going to diagnose him. But I'll just say, in 50 years of being around a lot of people, I've met very few who can behave that way, very, very few. It's a very unusual quality. And of course, it's probably useful in politics.

• 1:07:27David Friedberg?

  Is he electable?

• 1:07:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Is he electable? Yeah, exactly. Are the American people going to see that the way that you see it?

• 1:07:32Tucker Carlson?

  Well, as you know, the system in California does not include elections. I mean, it has nothing to do with what the people think. It's a, it's a machine state. It's the most corrupt out of 50. Kamala Harris was like despised by most Californians and she, you know, was a sitting US Senator. Diane, poor Dianne Feinstein, my neighbor in Washington, I don't think she was a horrible person, just for the record, but she was non compos minus, and like she could have lived well beyond her death as a US Senator. So it's like, it's not a democratic state, small d democratic state, it's not run on the basis of what the population wants, it's a fixed game in California, and so it does make me very uncomfortable that someone from that political culture, which is an utterly

• 1:08:13Tucker Carlson?

  corrupt political culture, an authoritarian political culture, could like enter a presidential race, because like, clearly, what are you running on if you're Gavin Newsom? As a native Californian, you know, I know what the state was like in 1985, because I lived there, and it's completely degraded from that, from that time. And like, how did that happen? Well, part of the big reason, the big reason is the political leadership in the state. You've got nothing to run on. What are you running, have you driven through LA recently? Like, seriously? So, the fact that he would get in the race suggests, you know, they think that they can win without the consent of voters, and that freaks me out.

• 1:08:53David Sacks?

  Well, he'll have the media working on overdrive for him, right? I mean, they will turn him somehow into like John F Kennedy or something, I mean, they will paper over all of his flaws, and they'll, you know, they'll basically write puff pieces, it'll be like, nonstop, and then they'll be attacking Trump, so the media will put him over the top, I think, if he can be put over the top.

• 1:09:14Tucker Carlson?

  Well, assuming that we have the same media that we had in 2020, that's true, but I mean, that's why you just gotta pray every night for Elon's health, and I mean it, too, I mean it. It's the only platform at scale in the world, that's pretty, you know, there's censorship on it, but there's not mass censorship, actually, there isn't, and that's the only platform of its kind, at scale, it's the only one.

• 1:09:37David Sacks?

  So let's talk about that, actually, so, I mean, we've talked in this conversation about how our public discourse is inane, and self-destructive, and divisive, I would add another word to that, which is controlled, you know, controlled. A good example of this, I think, was just on the Ukraine war. David Arakamia, who is Zelensky's parliamentary leader, who was the lead negotiator for the Ukrainians at Istanbul in the first month of the war, when there was a deal on the table, he just testified, basically said in an interview, "There was a deal on the table to shut the war down. We just would have had to agree to make Ukraine neutral." And of course, the Biden administration told them not to. This war is and has always been about NATO expansion.

• 1:10:22David Sacks?

  And yet, the party line from the media, even as all of these proof points stack up, I mean, we're now on like the 10th person firsthand witness to say that this is what this war is all about. You still can't get the media to honestly report this. This is one example, okay? And I believe that this is one of the reasons why you were fired, Tucker, is because you were literally the only person on mainstream network news saying what the war is really about. So this is like one really big example is that we cannot get any truth on an issue as big as Ukraine war. So I guess my question for you is, like, how does control like that happen? Like, I don't really understand it myself. We live in a big, what's supposed to be a big democracy.

• 1:11:06David Sacks?

  There's supposed to be, you know, a lot of media channels. But yet, they all enforce a certain narrative on pretty much every issue. But even, you know, again, I'm picking on, I think, one of the biggest issues right now, which is this war we've got going on. I mean, how does that happen? I don't understand it. How do they maintain that control?

• 1:11:24Tucker Carlson?

  This is one of my personal concerns about technology and about progress of all kinds, which is you don't actually know where it's going. You don't. I mean, your best forecasts or mine have very often been wrong. And, you know, of course, the promise of the internet was diversity and access to information from a lot of different sources, unfiltered information. You can talk to people in foreign countries for free. You know, every American will have an encyclopedia at his fingertips, and people are going to be much more informed, and no one will be able to control it because it's free and open. And the effect has been, you know, the opposite. There's less, I would argue, there's been less freedom in information than there was 30 years ago. How did that happen?

• 1:12:09Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, that's, it's a very, I mean, you guys are much better situated to answer that question. Someone should think about that, I think. But the bottom line is, there are just not that many pipelines, actually. You know, in television, there were three big news channels. Cable, you know, broadcast kind of receded in importance. It's mostly about prostate health now. And so there are three big channels, two of them on one side, one was on the other. And then there were the social media giants, but there are not that many of them. And they were all locked down, and they were all riddled with intel, in some cases, actual salaried intel officers. Matt Taibbi's amazing reporting has shown this. Not just American either, from foreign countries. The whole thing was an op. It was insane. And, you know, I'm not going to beat up on Fox News, but there was a kind of a fairly

• 1:12:53Tucker Carlson?

  narrow band of acceptable views allowed on that channel. Is that controlled? Yes, it is. And so there really was no remaining place with scale where someone with a dissenting view could give it voice. And that's just crazy. It's the opposite of what we were promised, but whatever, not to whine about it. But the existence of X, where anyone around the world, or in most countries anyway, can get for free a whole range of opinions that aren't controlled, that changes everything. Like, the primacy of control of information in a war cannot be overstated. Like, that's, you can debate whether it's more important than ammunition, but it's right up there. You know, and so I think this election, if that platform stays free for the next 12

• 1:13:37Tucker Carlson?

  months, you know, I think we have a shot at at least of a real election. But if it does, and I think they're going to do whatever they can to shut it down.

• 1:13:44Jason Calacanis?

  We also have web-based shows, podcasts, and that even predated a little bit Elon taking over, you know, X.

• 1:13:51Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 1:13:52Jason Calacanis?

  There is a self-correcting mechanism here. If you feel too controlled, like maybe perhaps you felt, or you felt pressure at Fox, I don't want to speak for you if you did, then all of a sudden Joe Rogan, All In Podcast, whatever, podcasts all emerge, and now your show on X, and I'm sure it's going to be on other platforms as well. Maybe you can speak to what you think the impact of a post-Fox Tucker Carlson show will be, and how will you be able to sort of shape the show differently, if at all? And what's the mission here? That was my first question we never really got to, which is, post-Fox, post-money, post-fame, what is Tucker Carlson's mission statement going forward? What is your goal here?

• 1:14:34Tucker Carlson?

  Just the same, the same as before, and I should just be extra clear. I wish I could tell horror stories about Fox, you know, forcing me to take some line or other, but they really didn't. But, you know, they didn't want the show anymore, so that kind of tells you. But anyway, the point is, uh, my intent in hosting that show is the same as my intent in hosting the show we're about to launch on X, which is, you know, just do your best to say what you think is true, bring perspectives and information that you don't think are widely covered to a larger audience, and, you know, try and stay firm in that. Admit when you're wrong. Like, just be honest. It's actually not, it's, you know, I got in this business because I hadn't graduated from college and my father's like, "It's a pretty pure meritocracy

• 1:15:15Tucker Carlson?

  in journalism. You should do it." And it's also pretty simple. No real skills required. Just be literate, which I was.

• 1:15:21Jason Calacanis?

  And is the show gonna evolve a little bit?

• 1:15:23Tucker Carlson?

  That's it.

• 1:15:23Jason Calacanis?

  Because you've been doing this experiment, you've done about 40 episodes or so.

• 1:15:26Tucker Carlson?

  Well, here's the way, here's the way that it already has evolved. So I got laid off in, in April, and I, you know, I like to, I like to fish and bird hunt, so I did a lot of that. And then I was like, "Ah, I need to do something." So I've been stuck in a studio for all these, you know, many, many years. I couldn't really go anywhere. And I went, I took seven foreign trips in four months. I just went to all these places where I knew people. I was interested in what was going on. And I just found it amazing. Two things I found amazing. One, the view of America, the advantage you get from a foreign country on what's happening in your own is completely different. There's also a lot, the whole world is reshuffling, in my view, after the Ukraine war. February 2022 really did change a lot, particularly with respect to America's place in the world. That's worth

• 1:16:10Tucker Carlson?

  covering. And the second thing I learned, once I started putting videos up on X, was that it's international. I mean, I was just shocked by that. I mean, because, think about it. I mean, I'm working for a US news channel. It's one of three US news channels I've worked for. CNN was international, but I was on CNN US. So I'm just used to thinking about America, being viewed by Americans, having a conversation about this country. I had no experience at all of a, of a big international audience, and that platform has that. And so I was amazed by that. And so, um, we're gonna continue to cover the rest of the world. I'm going over to Dubai in February interviewing a.

• 1:16:48Jason Calacanis?

  It's incredible. I've been spending time.

• 1:16:49Tucker Carlson?

  Heads of state over. It's just so interesting. It's just so interesting. There's so much going on. It's like crazy. People, and this is not a political point. This is like a human point that bothers me almost more than anything politically, which is the death of curiosity. It's like, people are not curious. Like, what the hell? I thought the technological revolution would, would set off, like, explosions in the brain of every person. Like, what is that? I want to learn more! And it had exactly the opposite. It's like, lull me to sleep with TikTok. Don't tell me more. I don't want to know.

• 1:17:18David Friedberg?

  Just double down on what you already know, what you already believe, over and over and over again.

• 1:17:22Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. I know, I'm less certain in my beliefs. I know that I know less than any time of my life, and I'm much more interested in many more things than I've ever been. I think that's normal. And I think there's something, like, in the water or something that's making people not care. The UFO thing. Like, what? Whatever your views of that, like, well, what is that? Shut up! And that's normal. People don't want to hear it. Why? I don't know, whatever. I don't want to preach.

• 1:17:46Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, post-COVID, we still don't have an accounting of what happened, and Tucker, what do you think about the, the clip yesterday of Elon? Let's play it for 45 seconds and then get your response, Tucker Carlson.

• 1:17:59Speaker 05

  Apology tour, if you will. This had been said online. There was all of the criticism. There was advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Iger today.

• 1:18:07Speaker 06

  I hope they stop.

• 1:18:08Speaker 05

  You hope?

• 1:18:09Speaker 06

  Uh, don't advertise.

• 1:18:11Speaker 05

  You don't want them to advertise?

• 1:18:12Speaker 06

  No.

• 1:18:13Speaker 05

  What do you mean?

• 1:18:16Speaker 06

  If somebody's gonna try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go fuck yourself.

• 1:18:25Speaker 05

  But...

• 1:18:26Speaker 06

  Go fuck yourself. Is that clear? I hope it is. Hey, Bob, if you're in the audience.

• 1:18:35Speaker 05

  Well, let me ask you, then.

• 1:18:39Speaker 06

  That's how I feel.

• 1:18:39Jason Calacanis?

  All right, Tucker, your response to the "good for you," the old G-F-Y.

• 1:18:45Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, I've, you know, interviewed people every week for over 30 years, and so I know what it is to interview... I just dropped my peri. Excuse me. And I know, you know, I know I have a lot of experience interviewing people, and I've interviewed Elon, you know? And I don't understand how the, the New York Times character, fussy little guy from the New York Times... How could you not laugh? Like, what? He just told Bob Iger to fuck herself.

• 1:19:08Jason Calacanis?

  Don't get me started. You and I are insane. Andrew Ross Sorkin is amongst the weakest of moderators in your viewers.

• 1:19:14Tucker Carlson?

  But he's just, what a, what a fussy little douche. Like, that's the moment where he just like, you erupt in a total like, are you joking? Elon Musk just told Bob Iger to fuck himself? Like, I'd be texting my wife. It's unbelievable. I know. Um, no, of course I love it. I love it. I, I am in the Iger thing. I, you know, I don't hate Bob Iger or anything, but like, I keep hearing from people, you know, mutual people I know who know Bob Iger very well. That he's like very serious about running for president. And it's like, if you really think if you're Bob Iger, you can run for president. You have anything to offer people or they want you to be president, like you're pretty out of touch. So I like that.

• 1:19:53Tucker Carlson?

  But, you know, big picture, I'm, I'm really, and I'm not just saying this because it, you know, aligns with my interests of some kind. I mean it. I'm worried about the pressure that's been brought to bear on that platform and this platform on X, because it's the only one, the only big one. You know, huge one, international one, tens of millions of people, hundreds of millions of people, like, they have to cut, they, meaning the people who would like to maintain the status quo, kind of have to shut it down. And I am just so hoping that, you know, I can help in any way and that all decent people, whatever their views, add their voice to a chorus that says, no, you can't shut down the one big free speech platform in the world.

• 1:20:37Tucker Carlson?

  You can't do that because then it's just dictatorship. You're not free if you don't have free information and you can't say what you really think.

• 1:20:43Jason Calacanis?

  You are subject to a lot of these advertising attacks. They, they went after Fox and your show specifically and, and it worked. They got people to not advertise on your show.

• 1:20:53Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 1:20:53Jason Calacanis?

  So these advertising boycotts do work, Media Matters, whatever, you know, whoever's doing them. So I'm curious what you see the business model being for your show? And then how you hope to be resistant to it? Are you going to just go straight up subscription and hope that half your audience or 10% of your audience pays? And you put half out for free, half out for sub? What are you thinking?

• 1:21:13Tucker Carlson?

  You've got to have a subscription component to it. And of course, We're selling ads against our content and we'll be doing that on X and on TuckerCarlson.com. We'll be hosting the subscription part of it. Of course, we're selling ads. We'll have network ads too. I mean, there are lots of different things you can do. But in the end, you have to have some subscription component if you're going to do it at scale. I mean, we brought our whole staff, almost our whole staff from Fox with us. So we got a bunch of people. We've got, you know, bigger ambitions than have been on display so far. And we, you know, you've got to have more information.

• 1:21:55Tucker Carlson?

  And I would just say this about just having been in this one business my whole life. The range of stories is the problem. It's not that the stories are all totally dishonest. Some are dishonest, but some are not. They're technically true, but they're taken from such a small pot of stories that it's like, it's crazy. There's all this stuff going on and it's just not, I mean, I was completely obsessed and remain obsessed with the industrial sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. It's like, that's a major historical event. Like you just, you just ended the EU. You just hobbled the economic engine of Europe, which is Germany. And like, who did that? And there were like very few stories on that. That's like a very big deal.

• 1:22:39Tucker Carlson?

  And again, back to the curiosity thing, but it's more than that. It's like the people sort of know where not to go. And I just feel like that's, first of all, that's soul death. You're not a free man if you're that constrained in your thinking, if you're letting somebody else tell you what you're allowed to think. How can your wife, how can your wife even sleep with you at that point? She, no one can respect you if you live like that. A, B, you can't have a democracy. You can't have a free country under those circumstances. So, and I don't think I'm overstating it. And so we're going to try to, I hope, be one of many different similar efforts to just add to the sum total of information and analysis of that information.

• 1:23:18Jason Calacanis?

  Well, the end of, the end of democracy and sex would be kind of rough, I think. Yeah.

• 1:23:21Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 1:23:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I have a final question and I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist. But...

• 1:23:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If one of the presidential candidates called you and said, "Tucker, be my VP."

• 1:23:35Tucker Carlson?

  Hmm. And replace Kamala Harris? I mean, I don't think I could do that. She's a historic first.

• 1:23:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I did, Tucker. Would you consider it if Donald Trump gave you that call?

• 1:23:45Tucker Carlson?

  Well, of course I would consider it. I'd con- I mean, you have no idea how open-minded I am. I'd consider anything, actually. But, I mean, the truth is, I kinda don't respect people who do stuff like that. I really believe I've got a lot of theories which I will not inflict on you, but which I do inflict on my own four children. And my main theory of life is that you should do what you were designed to do. I don't believe this whole "you can be whatever you want to be" thing. I think it's an absurd lie. I think we're made for certain things. We have certain aptitudes, they're inborn, they can- we can hone them, and we need to, through practice, repetition, but it's very- I think it's a sign of hubris, which is always the death of- particularly of men, hubris, thinking you have more power than you do,

• 1:24:30Tucker Carlson?

  when midlife, you're like, "Well, actually, what I really want to do is direct." It's like, "You just won Best Actress, honey, go back to acting." And I've never been involved in politics. I've never- I haven't even voted in all elections. I'm serious. So like, the idea that I'm going to, at 54, like, run for national office, I- it's a little... You know what I mean? Like, I don't take myself quite that seriously. I mean, I can't imagine doing something like that. I'm just being honest.

• 1:24:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The reason I ask this question is that if we're- at least the Republicans will now prove that we've lived in a 12-year era of a non-traditional candidate. That was essentially a media personality that was able to then curate a plurality of support, right?

• 1:25:12Tucker Carlson?

  That's right.

• 1:25:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And there's gonna be something that comes after him. And so I'm just trying to get a sense of, if it's not you, it's probably, to be very honest, somebody like you.

• 1:25:21Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 1:25:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so just talk to us about that for just a second.

• 1:25:26Tucker Carlson?

  I completely agree with you and I love your characterization of Trump as someone who's from a media background because that's closer to the, I'm not diminishing, I'm from a media background, I'm not attacking it, but that's a lot closer to the truth than most characterizations, casino magnet, developer, he's a media guy, you know, he had lots of businesses, but he was a media guy, he had the top show on NBC, and so I think you're absolutely right. My concern is, and I have pure contempt for the professional political class, I've written a book about it, I've expressed it daily for a number of years now, and it's real. However, I think that there, you know, these are complex systems and it's better to have someone who understands the systems, in an ideal world, administer the systems, because

• 1:26:09Tucker Carlson?

  he's more effective at doing so. And I also think that, once you decide that like, hey, let's just go crazy, and you couple that with true social disorder, like you get to a place where you can't buy anything at CVS because it's chained up, because shoplifting has been legalized, as it has been in California, what you're going to get is fascism. Because people can't live in that, they can't live with chaos, like that's the one thing they can't deal with, and I've covered a couple of wars and that was my main conclusion. The main problem with war is not that people get killed, it's that people have to live with total uncertainty and craziness, and that's incompatible with what people want. Like that's the worst thing. You know, we're all gonna die, dying is not the worst thing.

• 1:26:54Tucker Carlson?

  The worst thing is living in chaos, and we're starting to live in chaos. And so the return to order is what scares me, I think it'd be very easy, and I do think Gavin Newsom is a fascist, I think he's the kind of person who would have no problem, no hesitation about using the DOJ to imprison his political opponents. Now Biden is imprisoning his political opponents, but at least they're lying about it. Gavin Newsom is the kind of person who'd be like, well yeah, you're a threat to the general order and you're going to jail. And I think because we're in a moment of chaos right now... People kind of want that, actually. I think one of the purposes of degrading and confusing our society is to make way for authoritarianism, even more than we have now. So that kind of freaks me out, actually.

• 1:27:37Tucker Carlson?

  I personally, what I would really like is a kind of colorless, you know, boring, non-charismatic, like Gerald Ford, Mike Pence, without their views. Both of those men were bad men, in my opinion. But someone like that, who could govern without making it about himself, and restore the country to a sense of rules-based order. That's what I really want, but I'm probably going to be denied that.

• 1:28:05David Friedberg?

  Tucker, I feel like one of the other consequences of the way things have gone is that the solution has always been to throw more money at the problem, and we've got this kind of out-of-control fiscal condition. What's your point of view on the fiscal condition of the US as a priority? The federal government, that is, as a priority? And, you know, do we need to shrink government? Shrink overall discretionary spending? Do we need to cut these entitlements? Do we need to do it all? And how do we get there, given that everyone gets elected? By telling people, "I'm going to give you more stuff." And then this just kind of cascades for decades, until eventually, bad shit happens.

• 1:28:43Tucker Carlson?

  Well, who's going to buy our debt? I mean, that's like, it's scary, it's so scary.

• 1:28:49Tucker Carlson?

  You know, this is, of course, the problem with democracy. I mean, I think since, you know, from the Roman Republic until 1776, like, how many democracies were there?

• 1:28:56David Friedberg?

  Exactly.

• 1:28:58Tucker Carlson?

  Let me just do the math on that. Approximately zero in that range? And this was the critique, of course, in Europe, of democracy at the time. It's not that it gave too much freedom to the average person, but that it would result in tyranny. And when the majority discovered it could steal the goods of whomever it wanted, legally, legally, you would wind up with dictatorship. I mean, this is like a very well-trodden path, but I mean, but I hope it doesn't get to that. I'm not making an argument against democracy. I'm just saying it's a little bit harder to perpetuate than we thought that it was. And this is kind of the fear that people have had for hundreds of years.

• 1:29:38David Friedberg?

  The fiscal condition is the manifestation of that structural problem.

• 1:29:42Tucker Carlson?

  Yes, yes, that's exactly, that's exactly right.

• 1:29:45Jason Calacanis?

  Let's end on this Elon clip from yesterday, just about virtue. I'd like to get your reaction to this, Tucker.

• 1:29:52Speaker 06

  Tesla has done more to help the environment than all other companies combined. It would be fair to say that therefore, as a leader of the company, I've done more for the environment than everyone else, any single human on earth.

• 1:30:06Speaker 05

  How do you feel about that?

• 1:30:10Speaker 06

  How do you feel about that?

• 1:30:11Speaker 05

  Yeah, no, I'm asking you personally how you feel about that because this goes, we're talking about power and influence and...

• 1:30:16Speaker 06

  I'm saying, I'm saying what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil. Fuck them.

• 1:30:28Jason Calacanis?

  Your thoughts on virtue signaling versus reality?

• 1:30:31Tucker Carlson?

  That was like, it was like, it was like the hand of God massaging my central nervous system, like every arrhythmia zone was just heightened awareness. That, I couldn't... It's a full release, full chiropractic release. Wow, so dirty, I'm sorry. No, but I just, I so vehemently agree, and I don't even like electric cars. I don't think they help the environment. I didn't even agree with that part. I just love his point, which is the point, which is what actually matters is what you do. It's not what you think. What matters is helping other people. And I also think that the fact that Andrew Ross Sorkin has a television job shows this is not a meritocracy. Like, I don't know how he got that.

• 1:31:13Speaker 05

  Clearly, that was my fault.

• 1:31:15Tucker Carlson?

  But his response, his response to that was like, he didn't even, he can't even, like, I'll just kind of say, this is like so inside baseball, but it's literally what I do for a living, I have done all my life.

• 1:31:24Speaker 05

  Yes, that's what we do, Tucker. You and I do this.

• 1:31:26Tucker Carlson?

  The key to interviewing people, yes, is to listen to them. Larry King, I used to fill in for Larry King at CNN. He was number one, 9pm, all this stuff. The first time I filled in for Larry King, there was no research on the guests. I had two guests, no research. And I said to the producer, Larry was like in Cabo with wife number seven, and I said, "Where's the research?" "Oh, Larry doesn't do research." So I do the show, went fine, and I called him after, I was like, "Dude, you do no research?" He goes, and he was number one, most dominant figure in cable news by far, and he goes, "No, I just listen." And when someone says something weird, I pause, and I say, "Wait, wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. You killed someone in 1962? Why'd you kill him?"

• 1:32:04Jason Calacanis?

  You're present in the interview.

• 1:32:06Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 1:32:07Jason Calacanis?

  And then you follow up based on what this guest said.

• 1:32:09David Friedberg?

  Notice how Jason's interrupting you right now. Sorry, go ahead.

• 1:32:11Jason Calacanis?

  No, I'm listening to what Tucker said and reflecting back to what he said, which is what Game realizes.

• 1:32:17Tucker Carlson?

  That's right. It's a co-equate.

• 1:32:19David Sacks?

  Jake House treating this as validation.

• 1:32:21Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely.

• 1:32:22David Sacks?

  There's actually a story to this, Tucker, that you don't need to know about.

• 1:32:26Tucker Carlson?

  I can tell. It's tantalizing.

• 1:32:28Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, it is. It is. Trust me. Well, let's end here. You know, we have a lot of fans of not only is about 18% crossover between All In and your work, Tucker, and they send me images of you out there and about in the world. And we just, I just got this one in my DMs. I don't know what's going on. What's going on here? Is that a part of New Hampshire? Where are you guys? This is the bromance is complete.

• 1:32:54David Sacks?

  We gonna run out of these yet?

• 1:32:56Tucker Carlson?

  That is so, you know what? I'm not, that's kind of hunky. I'm just being honest.

• 1:33:01Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it's a lot going on here. Well, listen, we got a wrap.

• 1:33:03David Friedberg?

  It's like a Vineyard Vines t-shirt.

• 1:33:05Jason Calacanis?

  The bromance is now complete. Tucker, we'd love to have you back on a regular basis.

• 1:33:10Tucker Carlson?

  That was so fun.

• 1:33:11David Friedberg?

  That was super fun. That was great.

• 1:33:13Tucker Carlson?

  And I'm sorry for talking too much. You guys spun me up into a frenzy, but I appreciate it.

• 1:33:17David Friedberg?

  I understand. I understand why you were number one in media. That was so fun. I really enjoyed it.

• 1:33:22Tucker Carlson?

  Thank you.

• 1:33:24Jason Calacanis?

  Really, really good. Thank you very much, Tucker. Thank you.

• 1:33:26David Sacks?

  Yeah, thank you.

• 1:33:27Tucker Carlson?

  Thanks, guys.

• 1:33:27David Sacks?

  It was amazing.

• 1:33:28Jason Calacanis?

  Good luck with the new launch. Everybody go to tuckervarson.com. And when the subs come out on day one, give them a sub, okay? Sub. Be Tucker's sub. Didn't come out exactly how I wanted it to, but yeah, sure. You can sub for Tucker. Sacks, are you gonna be a sub for Tucker Sacks? Are you subbing?

• 1:33:48David Sacks?

  I'm gonna Dom for Tucker.

• 1:33:49Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, God.

• 1:33:52Jason Calacanis?

  Poor Tucker. All right. Thanks, Tuck.

• 1:33:54Tucker Carlson?

  See you, guys.

• 1:33:56David Friedberg?

  What'd you guys think? That was fun.

• 1:33:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That was great.

• 1:33:58David Sacks?

  Yeah, let's show you.

• 1:33:59Jason Calacanis?

  I'm a soccer for Tucker. I'll be honest. Like, can we get him on group chat? I mean, this, can you imagine?

• 1:34:03David Friedberg?

  Yeah, he's such a fun guy. Great guy.

• 1:34:06Jason Calacanis?

  He's a great entertainer. And you know what? He's into, I know he's right wing, conservative, but he's actually, I think, a first principle thinker who thinks for himself. We didn't get into January 6th, we ran out of time, but, you know, he was, you know, not happy about that. He wasn't happy about election denial. I think he's intellectually rigorous.

• 1:34:21David Sacks?

  Wow, J. K.

• 1:34:22David Friedberg?

  What do you think, Chamath?

• 1:34:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I really liked it. I like talking to people that have opinions that force me to like actually rethink about how I think. And it was, I think, the most impactful thing that he said to me, which touches upon my own life, was just how one feels when you have a little bit too much too early versus grinding slowly and compounding success over many years. I think it does create, in moments, an element of self sabotage. I have lived it in my own life, so that totally resonated. This idea that there's just so much abundance that causes people to not really fight over the

• 1:35:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  big issues and then fight over the fringe issues. I do think that there's an element of huge truth in that. It was really, really good. I think like that, this is probably one of the very few ones that we've done that I would listen to over again.

• 1:35:17David Friedberg?

  Totally. I'd say that was like one of my favorite episodes, or probably my favorite episode.

• 1:35:20Jason Calacanis?

  Definitely a top five favorite episodes.

• 1:35:22David Friedberg?

  Just as a listener, I just enjoyed listening the whole fucking time.

• 1:35:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is the thing, I just wanted to, I could hear him talk for hours, probably.

• 1:35:27David Friedberg?

  I know. I didn't want to talk. I didn't have anything to say. I just wanted to chill and hang out. Like, listen, that's great. Yeah.

• 1:35:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Me too.

• 1:35:32David Sacks?

  Have you done Tucker Show, Chamath, yet?

• 1:35:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They asked me to do the show in December, which I couldn't do. And at some point in the spring, I will do the show, but then I was like, can you come on our show?

• 1:35:43David Friedberg?

  Sure.

• 1:35:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 1:35:43David Friedberg?

  There you go.

• 1:35:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're doing it right.

• 1:35:45David Sacks?

  It's amazing.

• 1:35:45David Friedberg?

  Great job. Yeah, that was amazing. Sax, didn't you like go on his show?

• 1:35:49David Sacks?

  No, I've been on Tucker Show a couple of times when it was on Fox. And one appearance was about Chase Boudin, you know, the DA that we got tossed out. And then

• 1:35:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Go team.

• 1:35:57David Sacks?

  I, I went on a couple of other times. I think one was about the economy. I was on a show a couple of times, for, you know, short segments. But anyway, I thought I thought what was interesting about this conversation was that it was much more philosophical than I was expecting.

• 1:36:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes.

• 1:36:10David Sacks?

  We touched on a few like policy issues, but we spent most of the time talking about his deeper clinical diagnosis of American culture and American discourse. And I would say that one of the things that's maybe unique about his take, and I mean definitely different than mine, is it's much more psychological than.

• 1:36:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Metaphysical even.

• 1:36:34David Sacks?

  Metaphysical and psychological. I mean,

• 1:36:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 1:36:36David Sacks?

  Like, I don't really ask too many questions about why people believe what they believe. I just sort of take it as a given and then discuss whether they're right or wrong. Whereas he actually sort of psychoanalyzes why people have the views that they have. And you know what I mean? It's actually kind of interesting.

• 1:36:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That whole methodology, for whatever it's worth, resonates with me. I mean, I think it's very, it's the reason early on I really gravitated to Renee Girard, because I thought it demonstrated a lot of how people behave to me in a, in a language that I could understand. So when Tucker describes problems in this context, to me, it's very powerful, just because that is how I kind of frame things as, I think humans are driven by psychological incentives. And I think that there is something very worth exploring here, which is these Western cultures get so prosperous that the big things we don't fight over, so then we fight over the little things, or we have to invent things to fight over.

• 1:37:30Jason Calacanis?

  And the virtue signaling he kind of brings up in his own personal experience, which is, hey, I go to Jackson Hole, I'm getting accosted, you know, in line at the lift, people's wives are upset at me, the husbands are upset at me, the hedge fund people, these are all people of incredible wealth, incredible privilege, who have extra cycles. And instead of having a debate over the issues in good faith, full contact debate like we do here, they just want to vilify people. And, you know, I tried to listen to him and say, hey, what does he get right here? Now, I obviously think he's wrong about climate change. I thought that was bonkers. But I do think he understands human nature pretty well from doing 30 years of interviews.

• 1:38:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah. It's definitely worth exploring, Jason, this idea that the more successful people get, the more self-loathing there is. And then it manifests in some, you know, really destructive ways. I think

• 1:38:15Jason Calacanis?

  Especially if you don't have a foundation.

• 1:38:16David Friedberg?

  Once you get successful enough, there's very little progress. I think a lot of human happiness comes from progress.

• 1:38:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Progress, exactly.

• 1:38:23Jason Calacanis?

  Well, and purpose, right?

• 1:38:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Where's the purpose? Well, there's just, there's just no higher order bits. You buy the house, that's a huge accomplishment. But then when you buy your second house or third house, I think the diminishing returns are severe.

• 1:38:35David Friedberg?

  Yeah, severe.

• 1:38:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then, and then these things are just baggage. They're like albatrosses.

• 1:38:39David Friedberg?

  Well, yeah, and then you're spending all this time dealing with headaches. You know, what's your progress?

• 1:38:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What's your progress?

• 1:38:44Jason Calacanis?

  What's the purpose in life? I mean, Sacks, when you bought your sixth house, I mean, I don't know.

• 1:38:49Jason Calacanis?

  You can cut that.

• 1:38:50David Friedberg?

  Sacks is busy reorganizing the US political establishment, so I think he's making progress, you know, in his own way.

• 1:38:56Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks is making progress.

• 1:38:57David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 1:38:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 1:38:58Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I, I, you know, he's... Where does he sit on the political spectrum today, Sacks? Because you and he are both... Yeah, because you're both kind of outcasts in the Republican Party now, right?

• 1:39:09David Sacks?

  I would describe Tucker as probably the most influential populist in, you know, on the, on the right. So there's a sort of populism. Well, there's a populism of the left that I guess was Bernie Sanders before he told, you know, maybe like five, eight years ago, whatever.

• 1:39:28Jason Calacanis?

  Describe us, describe for the audience, your perception of populism, you know, on the left and the right, and what they share and what they don't share, kind of thing. Because this does seem to be the emerging party, I think we would all agree, is that people are sick of these trains and they want something new, and the something new seems to be populism.

• 1:39:47David Sacks?

  Well, one way to think about populism is, is just democracy. Populism is the word that the elite gives to democracy they don't like. So for example, vast majority of the country wants our borders sealed. For some reason, the elites don't want that, so that's labeled populism. I think the vast majority of the country regrets the forever wars in the Middle East and doesn't want us getting involved in more wars, this sort of hyper-interventionism. I think that's like a major part of, of the platform. And then, of course, I think the third big area of reevaluation was around our free trade policies. You know, they really ended up hollowing out America's industrial capability and exported a lot of manufacturing jobs

• 1:40:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Globalization.

• 1:40:30David Sacks?

  To China, globalization. So, yeah, I think on the right...

• 1:40:35David Sacks?

  Big picture, I would say that populism is a nationalist reaction to the hyper-globalization that happened that was encouraged by the elites over the past few decades.

• 1:40:45Jason Calacanis?

  And he hit on that. He said, you know, at some point, are the politicians going to match what the people want? And they call this getting to Denmark. High-functioning governments in the Nordics, you know, tend to reflect what the candidates reflect what the people want, right? And we seem to have this kind of broken here. We have one other story people have wanted us to comment on when we had our week off. So I thought we'd get into the OpenAI thing. I just wanted to point out, I don't mean to make this like a love triangle, Sax, but Tucker and I did go skiing last year. We tried to keep it, but now that it's out, you know, here it is. I'm sorry about this, but we were actually in the Secco at the same time. So it's gonna come out at some point, Sax. We might as well talk about it.

• 1:41:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Look how old and nasty those ski clothes are.

• 1:41:33Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, yeah. Well, you know what? We're both very woke and we don't want, we're virtue signaling that we don't, we want to recycle. So we bought all this old ski stuff on eBay.

• 1:41:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I thought that was Phil Hellmuth on the left.

• 1:41:44Jason Calacanis?

  I guess that's not Jake out. That's me before I was in Big Face. All right. Let's do the OpenAI AI thing. If you guys have time, can we go over this real quick? I don't want to.

• 1:41:55David Sacks?

  We can. I just wonder if the story's stale, but.

• 1:41:57Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, I think one of the things we can do here is just sort of now that the three acts are complete, we can actually talk about the epilogue just to, for people who have not listened to the news.

• 1:42:08David Friedberg?

  I think the epilogue's about to drop, but.

• 1:42:10Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, well, that's, that's what we'll get at.

• 1:42:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think we're still in the second act here. I don't think this is over by a long shot.

• 1:42:17Jason Calacanis?

  All right. So let me architect this.

• 1:42:18David Sacks?

  Let's hear why. I'm curious why that is.

• 1:42:19Jason Calacanis?

  I'm going to architect it. I'm going to hand it to you, Chumoff. Act one, Sam's fired. Act two, chaos for a week. We were off. You know, what were all the reasons? Act three, obviously, just yesterday, Sam's back. I think Ilya's out. Microsoft's an observer on the board. So I guess the epilogue, Chumoff, is what we want to know is what happened? Why did this all happen? Was there a major breakthrough? Was it Sam doing deals with Masayoshi Son or in the Middle East to make, you know, AI chips? What do you, if we, if the epilogue does drop? Or if like you're saying, this is the second act and the third act's going to begin, whichever metaphor you want to use, what will it say, Jima?

• 1:42:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think we can all agree on what happened, which is that the employees realized that in the absence of leadership, business leadership, that the enterprise value of that company was going to disintegrate. And what would have been imperiled was an $86 billion valuation secondary. So I think the employees did what was in their best interests, and it makes the obvious and logical sense, which is, we need to circle the wagons and get the business leadership of this company back into this place, so that the value of the enterprise is sustained. They did that. So I think this valuation is going to hold. I think the secondary

• 1:43:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  is going to happen. So I think like, from that perspective, whatever was supposed to happen there, happened. So what are the interesting threads that are left over?

• 1:43:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We don't yet have a full accounting of what precipitated all of the, all of the decision making at the board, number one. Number two is, the person who seemed to be the principal inventor is now no longer on the board, and I think, based on Sam's blog post, could probably no longer be at the company. That seems like an important thing. And then the third thing, which I found odd, was Brett Taylor, who I worked with at Facebook, who I've known for a long time, very sober, reasonable guy, puts out his own addendum to the blog post that basically says, his chairmanship of this board is purely transitory.

• 1:44:39Jason Calacanis?

  What do you take, what's, what is that? Yeah. What do you take from that?

• 1:44:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My takeaway is whatever's happening is still TBD. There is enough question marks that, look, I told my friends on the board without saying who it was. Whatever you guys do, the most important thing that you need to do is you need to retain great counsel and make sure that there, and I said this publicly, make sure that there's phenomenal DNO insurance. And make sure that there aren't any issues where you could be held personally liable for whatever happens in the future.

• 1:45:10Jason Calacanis?

  You're saying of the vow, the corporate vow, yeah.

• 1:45:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Now, that's a generic thing that I think all corporate directors should do. I think it's even more important here because you have a non-standard governance structure. That could change. And it could change because the people involved wanted to change. But it could also could change because the government says, hey, hold on a second, this should never have been like this in the first place. I'll give you an example of that. You know, at Facebook, there was a moment where we divested all of our IP to a subsidiary in Ireland. And for tax reasons, and there were two signatories to that deal. It was me and Zuck. And six or seven years later, this is long after I left Facebook, the IRS says, hold on a second, you misvalued these assets.

• 1:45:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We're owed X billions of dollars in taxes. It was a huge, long, drawn out thing. So at a minimum, if there's great value created here, there will be consequences with respect to tax and who paid what. And if you have the shielding of a nonprofit entity, there's theoretically a lot of taxes that could have been paid that not. So all of this to me says a lot of really open, curious threads, which means it's not the epilogue yet. We're probably somewhere at the end of act two.

• 1:46:25Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, uh, my question to you is there's been speculation that there was an super intelligence AGI breakthrough possibly, and that's what spooked everybody and maybe the claim that Sam wasn't forthcoming with the board was that he didn't tell them about it. The second thing was there's been some 4chan posts, again, this is pure speculation, that maybe the AI they're working on could break in some way encryption and that would have been caused a really chaotic global moment. What are your thoughts on those three potential items or more? Are any of those possibilities in your mind, Dave Friedberg?

• 1:47:04David Friedberg?

  No idea.

• 1:47:05David Sacks?

  I can take a shot at that.

• 1:47:06David Friedberg?

  Yeah, go ahead, Sacks.

• 1:47:08Jason Calacanis?

  Go ahead, Sacks, you take a shot.

• 1:47:09David Sacks?

  So I think the best theory on what actually happened here, what precipitated all of this, was broken in a piece by Reuters. And what it said was that there was a letter to the board that was written in the few days before Sam's firing by the board, in which they were raising concerns over the development of Q-Star, which was a new breakthrough at OpenAI that allows these language models to do math. And previously, LLMs just weren't very good at math. It would sort of predict the next word, but that wasn't actually based on mathematical reasoning. Q-Star actually allows the AI to do math. It understands mathematical reasoning. Supposedly, the capability is only at a grade school level right now, but it is highly

• 1:47:52David Sacks?

  accurate and it can be scaled up with more computing power. And I don't think it was coincidental that Sam was supposedly in the Middle East, seeking to raise billions of dollars to create a new chip company, basically a new specialized chip or ASIC, to perhaps run these types of models. So they were going to scale up this capability. And what mathematical reasoning allows you to do is unlock a whole new problem set. So for example, in chemistry, in physics, in computer science, in cryptography.

• 1:48:21Jason Calacanis?

  And encryption.

• 1:48:21David Sacks?

  And encryption, all these things, mathematic, mathematical reasoning underpins all of these disciplines. And so it does represent a major new piece towards AGI. And so I think the best theory about what happened is that the board, but I'd say specifically Ilya, had a panic or moment of panic or

• 1:48:47Jason Calacanis?

  Concern.

• 1:48:47David Sacks?

  Freak out or whatever, concern, whatever, about this. And it combined with probably underlying concerns that the board had about Sam's other activity because he's got his fingers in a lot of pies here.

• 1:48:59Jason Calacanis?

  So it hits two of the three potential reasons. You know, putting aside any personal behavior, it seems like there was no personal behavior here. So it's those two, right?

• 1:49:09David Sacks?

  Right. So they fire him, but they apparently didn't really think it through at all. And they didn't really think.

• 1:49:14Jason Calacanis?

  These are not, it's not a professional board.

• 1:49:16David Sacks?

  Yeah. That's constructive. Well, I don't know. I think Adam, Adam is very professional. No, Adam is, but the other two were considered first time board members. And then the two others who were, you know, from nonprofits or just not very familiar. And so what happened is they took this drastic action, but didn't explain it. And with each passing day, it became more glaring that they would not explain it. So the pressure sort of built on the company to explain itself and provide a good justification for this. And then meanwhile, I think Sam just ran a textbook counter to operation here. I mean, they got. Hearts, emojis. There was that aspect of it, but disguised behind the velvet glove of all these hearts and saying, I love you. And all this stuff was the iron fist.

• 1:50:00David Sacks?

  The iron fist was they got over 700 of the 770 OpenAI employees to sign a petition. They were going with Sam and Sam went to Microsoft and set up shop. So the threat to the board was I'm going to take the whole company with me and set up shop over at Microsoft. And that was sort of the compelling threat. Basically, all the employees threatened to, to quit and go with Sam. And so the board was under immense pressure. And then at the same time, you got the sense that Ilya was under a lot of personal pressure from his friends, from people he knew at the company. It's not probably irrelevant that there's about to be a huge cash out. There's about to be a big secondary at a $86 billion valuation. So all these early employees were about to make a lot of money.

• 1:50:45David Sacks?

  In any event, for all of these reasons, I think, I don't think Ilya is motivated by money. I think he's motivated by wanting to keep OpenAI intact. I think that he must've had a moment where he realized, wait a second, what we've done here in throwing out Sam is destroying the company. And then he recanted, he basically apologized and signed that petition. And at that moment, it just became a fait accompli that Sam was going to get his job back. And so that's basically what happened. Now, in terms of the epilogue. Where I disagree slightly with Chamath is that although they still have to form this board, they're going to form a nine-person board and they only have three members so far, I think the conclusion here is it's sort of a foregone conclusion, which is the

• 1:51:28David Sacks?

  board can never fire Sam again. I mean, they're not going to go through that again. Therefore, he has total control.

• 1:51:34Jason Calacanis?

  It would take a lot.

• 1:51:35David Sacks?

  It would take a lot. So I think that Sam has won and he's going to consolidate his control over the company. By the way, I thought he already had control. I thought that

• 1:51:44Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, you outlined that in the previous episode.

• 1:51:46David Sacks?

  We all thought that he had control. Apparently, he did not.

• 1:51:48Jason Calacanis?

  Do you think he makes it and spins it out and make it a for-profit? Do you think he just makes it a for-profit and then says, hey, we'll give X amount of the equity or whatever to this nonprofit, but we're going to, we're just going to flip this thing and separate it out and clean up the original sin?

• 1:52:01David Sacks?

  I think apparently there's like tax problems with doing that. But I, but I think that what happens is, look, they already have this for-profit LLC entity, which is where all the investors have, have basically put their money into and they've gotten shares or membership interests or some sort of profit interest.

• 1:52:17Jason Calacanis?

  Synthetic shares, whatever.

• 1:52:18David Sacks?

  Synthetic shares, phantom shares. And then the vast majority of that is owned by this foundation, the nonprofit foundation, that I always saw was under Sam's control, but apparently it wasn't. I think it now will be. I think that, I just think that what's going to happen in the next few months is that Sam will consolidate his control because he's proven that he has a total loyalty of the troops and they're behind him and there's no choice. So why won't he get everything he wants?

• 1:52:41Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, all of the, all of the smoke, I think, leads to the fire that you point out, which is there was some great advance. There was some deals going on and those things, it matches what the board said. We didn't feel like he was being forthcoming with us and it could be on two issues like that. It just totally makes sense. It locks the puzzle pieces in place. Dave, let's assume that they have now not only done language models, predicting the next word and, and, you know, understanding that, but there is some reasoning going on here and they understand math and it understands how to do the next math problem. I don't know if we put that under reinforcement learning. It's obviously very different than language models. Explain what you think, if that is what's happening here with the

• 1:53:26Jason Calacanis?

  Q project, what that could mean on a scientific basis?

• 1:53:29David Sacks?

  I don't know enough. I'm sorry.

• 1:53:31Jason Calacanis?

  That's, I mean, this is why we love you, because you're honest when you don't know. Chamath, ending here as we wrap in terms of watching this whole bruhaha.

• 1:53:41Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think it's probably not the end.

• 1:53:43David Friedberg?

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:53:45David Sacks?

  More drama. I think there probably will be more drama.

• 1:53:48David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I mean, it's a lot of drama. Did you see the article this morning? Oh. Where they started saying all the houses that Sam bought, he bought all these houses. And so I think there's a lot of investigators digging around now, trying to figure out all the backstory, because the board was in so forthcoming with what happened and why they made this decision. There's a lot of people digging around, trying to figure out more about Sam than may have been, you know, looked into in the past. So this will reveal all sorts of new threads that'll start to become part of the narrative. It's unfortunate. I think that the technology, the progress is what really matters here, not all the kind of personal people stuff. It's weird. I also, the other comment I'll make, I thought one of the biggest takeaways for me on the whole drama last week

• 1:54:32David Friedberg?

  was that the employees basically got their way. Employees got together, voted and said, this is what we want. And the board did what they wanted. And it really, I think, sets another precedent, much like, I think Elon set a really big precedent in Silicon Valley when he came in and slashed heads at Twitter. The precedent that it triggered a lot of other executives to start to think, well, maybe that's possible. And I should think about doing, you know, more cost savings and so on. This is another interesting precedent where an entire employee base gets together and says, we want X. And the board acquiesced and said, here you go. You can have X. Does that mean that other startups and other companies are going to start to see employee groups band together, saying, we want X in a more vocal, public way? Possibly.

• 1:55:17David Sacks?

  Well, I mean, Fieber, this is not a new tactic.

• 1:55:19David Friedberg?

  Right.

• 1:55:20David Sacks?

  But look, if the employees are willing to sign a petition en masse and you get over 90% of them supporting something, and then you also threaten to all set up shop somewhere else. I mean, boards usually respond to that pressure.

• 1:55:34David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 1:55:34David Sacks?

  But look, I think that it's very clear that Sam has the support of the troops. I'm not questioning that. But I think it would be a mistake to just see this as some sort of spontaneous ground swell. I think there was clearly like some organization to it. Like I said, I think he ran a textbook operation there.

• 1:55:51David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 1:55:52David Sacks?

  And wasn't it Paul Graham who said something like, if Sam were dropped on an island of cannibals, like kind of a Lord of the Flies situation, he'd be the one to come out on top?

• 1:56:02David Sacks?

  He's like really, he's in his element. Don't, don't just assume, look, this is all covered up by hearts and I love you. I mean, I've never read a corporate announcement with the word love in it more times. This was not about love and hearts. All the, you know, this is, there's some ruthless corporate infighting here.

• 1:56:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:56:19David Sacks?

  And he came out on top. But look, the board was totally incompetent. I mean, listen, if, if a board is going to take a drastic action of firing the founder CEO when everything is going great. I mean, because everything's been going great at OpenAI. It's incumbent on them to explain their actions and there needs to be a smoking gun.

• 1:56:39Jason Calacanis?

  Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they do that? Even as a C Y A or for their reputation?

• 1:56:45David Sacks?

  I'm saying it was totally incompetent.

• 1:56:47Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, they should have dropped it. Yeah.

• 1:56:50David Sacks?

  Well, no, what I'm saying is either there's a smoking gun or there's not. I don't think you should take an action like this ever unless there's a smoking gun. And if there is a smoking gun, you need to communicate that.

• 1:57:01Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 1:57:01David Sacks?

  And I think with each passing day that they didn't communicate it, people came to the conclusion, there is no smoking gun. And so my guess is there is no smoking gun and they were overly hasty about taking this action.

• 1:57:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this could have been a very simple discussion. Hey, Sam, can we work on you telling us in advance when you're going and doing deal making so we can be in alignment on it? Like, it seemed like there was something that could have been done that wasn't firing him in this explosive way.

• 1:57:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I mean, like, you could, you could put somebody on a pit, you could do all kinds of things. So taking the step of, yeah, letting somebody go in that way with that orchestration. Again, I just, I just think that this stuff is too juicy and too interesting for the details to not come out.

• 1:57:49Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, it will come out. Yeah. The fact that it hasn't come out yet is crazy. I would have suspected it would have come out in the first 72 hours.

• 1:57:54David Sacks?

  So you think there is maybe not a smoking gun, but there's something?

• 1:57:59Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, I think, I think it's what, what we said, which is that the economically rational decision for all the employees and for Sam and Greg was to do what they did because it allows them to get an $86 billion valuation and a big secondary done, right? So that makes complete rational sense. That is the rational decision.

• 1:58:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That should have happened and so that did. But it doesn't stop whatever underlying chaos was happening that caused this decision to exist in the first place to not come out. I just think that the incentives for that decision to come out now, for example, from the two departing board members is quite high. How do you get this information from the incoming board members? How do they not say anything? All the new six people will have that join the board will have to get ready into this thing. Right? So you're just multiplying the number of people that knows whatever it is. And it's either going to be David, to your point, path A, which is the board didn't know what they're doing and they acted hastily or, you know, the self preservation of here's what we knew.

• 1:59:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But it is just going to come out and leak after leak after leak. And then to your point, the pulling the sweater of all of the other deals that may have been happening on the side or whatever. All of this stuff now comes up because it's just too salacious for too many people. The numbers are too big. Everything just looks too juicy. Now you have this like hidden technology that could theoretically ruin the world. Everybody will be leaking to everybody. And that that's the that's the only guarantee here. Which is why I really think that you have to commend the leadership team for trying to become very militaristic about all of this. Everybody had the same tweets. They said the same things. They use the same heart emojis. I mean, it was extremely well managed.

• 1:59:49David Sacks?

  It was mantras.

• 1:59:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's amazing what a secondary will do to the troops. And when there's alignment of the stock price.

• 1:59:55David Sacks?

  What was the mantra? The mantra was that OpenAI is nothing without its employees or something like that.

• 2:00:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's team. We are nothing without our team or something.

• 2:00:03David Sacks?

  And that was that was basically something that on the surface appeared to be a positive affirmation of camaraderie. But like I said, iron fist beneath a velvet glove. It's a threat. It's a threat. We can set up shop at Microsoft.

• 2:00:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's also the formula in in an Excel spreadsheet that says they are nothing without the team. The enterprise value equals zero.

• 2:00:24David Sacks?

  Your company is a zero without us and we can go set up shop somewhere else. So it was perfect velvet glove, iron fist type stuff.

• 2:00:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, well done, Sam. Well, Sam will be on the pod in the coming weeks, I think. I've been texting with him. So I think if Sam. I think what Elon said yesterday was also really interesting, which is he described Ilya as an extremely moral person. Who thinks about these things subtly? And so, again, and I've known Adam for a long time. I think Adam is tremendous.

• 2:00:56Jason Calacanis?

  From Cora, Adam D'Angelo.

• 2:00:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, he was a CTO at Facebook. We worked together in the trenches in war for years. He is just the best of the best.

• 2:01:05David Sacks?

  Totally. He's very smart, you know, very knowledgeable.

• 2:01:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is not an irrational, emotional person.

• 2:01:12David Sacks?

  My guess is that that they had good reasons to want to act based on the Ilya's philosophy around AI safety. You may not agree with that philosophy, but their mistake was if you're going to do something like that, you have to be able to defend it. You have to be able to communicate it. And I mean, if your concern here was around AI safety, write a manifesto. You know, explain the values that you're invoking and supporting.

• 2:01:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think that's a takeaway for all of us, for all of us on boards that at some point have to make these decisions because we're all faced with them and we've made them.

• 2:01:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The lesson that I learned is we're at a point where it is so important that you give employees the transparency to re-underwrite why they should stay. So when you make a decision like this in any company going forward, my reaction will be open the kimono and lay out the case bare. So if you have to make a CEO transition, this is exactly why we did it. This was the precipitating events that caused it. Here's the evidence. And here's what we're going to do about it. And I think that that's probably a good takeaway for all boards to learn, which is that level of transparency is going to be needed in the future so that folks don't fill in the blanks with their own conspiracy theories.

• 2:02:32Jason Calacanis?

  Also, there were apparently two companies or two organizations running in parallel here to build on your points, Jamath, which is Ilya and the nonprofit. This might have been the right decision for that organization. But the right decision for the employees who are incented by this secondary that was about to be shipping the employees, apparently billions of dollars. That for-profit company, this would be the wrong decision. The for-profit company should go fast and it should be releasing products.

• 2:03:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And Jason, like the, I, I, from what was reported, there's like this Obligation, and it's hard to understand what it means of the board to determine when AGI is reached and then as a result essentially hit the kill switch on the commercial business. And if I were a board member dealing with that, I would want a gazillion trillion dollars of insurance to cover me. And the reason is that when that's litigated, not if, when that's litigated, it is that board that will be at the center of dealing with that financial responsibility and liability. This is the other master stroke, I think, of what Sam

• 2:03:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  did. He's not even on the board, so that liability is no longer his. Yeah. So he's got complete, he's got complete control of the business and, and the actual None of the responsibility. And then the actual fiscal responsibility, he doesn't have to bear.

• 2:04:00David Sacks?

  Well, can I speak to the kill switch for a second? So I, I think it's a really interesting point. So, so by the way, Jason, there is a for-profit entity here. The for-profit entity is this new LLC that was created.

• 2:04:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Correct.

• 2:04:09David Sacks?

  The nonprofit entity is above it at the governance layer and it kind of owns the LLC.

• 2:04:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Right.

• 2:04:15David Sacks?

  So again, investors and employees get compensated out of the LLC and then this nonprofit foundation was supposed to exercise a really complicated org chart. There you go.

• 2:04:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Whenever an org chart has more than like two arrows.

• 2:04:27David Sacks?

  It's crazy.

• 2:04:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're fucked.

• 2:04:28David Sacks?

  Right.

• 2:04:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How many arrows? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight arrows. That's six too many.

• 2:04:34David Sacks?

  But my point is that this complexity was justified by this idea of the kill switch that if the AI gets out of control, the AGI gets out of control, we're going to have this board of super wise people who are not motivated by a profit incentive, right? Because that, we can't trust the profit motive, right? And so we're going to have this board of, of, of wise elders who are going to make this, you know, super intelligent decision.

• 2:05:02David Sacks?

  And if this whole episode shows anything, it shows this structure completely failed. I mean, the board ended up acting in a completely incompetent way. Either they had good cause to do what they did and didn't explain it, which was incompetent, or they had no cause at all, which was incompetent. Either way, you cannot say that this board acted with a high degree of competence. No matter how competent any of the individuals are, I'm just saying that as a board dynamic, it completely failed. So they did not invent some higher form of governance as they originally claimed was

• 2:05:33Jason Calacanis?

  It's a Frankenstructure.

• 2:05:35David Sacks?

  So it didn't work. And I think this all, I mean, it's a, I think, important lesson in human motivations, which is just because you take out the profit motive does not mean that human beings all of a sudden become noble. They just pursue other agendas, basically political agendas or whatever. And so this idea that we're going to solve the AGI problem or alignment issue by creating nonprofit structures, I think that this episode proves that's not going to work. Like, look elsewhere.

• 2:06:08Jason Calacanis?

  And you and I talked about this on Twitter Spaces and X Spaces, which was, you know, people give VCs and, you know, investors a hard time about, you know, I don't know, their existence and how they operate in the world. Okay, fair enough. I'm sure there's valid criticisms. But the share price and employees participating and the share price going up and secondaries occurring on a regular basis is the most perfect structure that has been created by humans to date for running an organization, I think we would all agree. And it's super imperfect and there's weird things that happen. But if you want everybody to grow in the right direction, giving them some shares and then everybody watching the share price go up and to the right is pretty phenomenal. This board did not have one VC on it.

• 2:06:50David Sacks?

  Right. And all the VCs in the company were, they were the biggest. You know, they were the most aggressive tweeters saying, you know, WTF like, what are you doing? Because they could see their investment going up in smoke.

• 2:07:02Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, they had alignment with the share price, but no controls.

• 2:07:06David Sacks?

  So, so as much as you don't like the profit motive, it does create alignment and that makes people predictable. And that's a good thing. And like Adam Smith said in the 1700s, the reason we can trust that the butcher and the baker will serve us our dinner is because they're going to make a profit. They're aligned with us. And, you know, we don't look to charity. We look to their self-interest. And like you said, for all the shit that VCs take, that if you properly align people, it can create, I think, it creates a great enterprise. It creates a potential.

• 2:07:40Jason Calacanis?

  Great outcomes.

• 2:07:41David Sacks?

  For a great enterprise, for great outcomes.

• 2:07:42Jason Calacanis?

  Great outcomes. Absolutely. All right. This has been another extraordinary all-in episode, probably top five. Thanks so much for Tucker Clausen for coming on the program and for the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg, the Rain Man. Yeah, definitely. David Sacks and the dictator himself. Love you guys. I'm Paul Hoppity. I'm the world's greatest moderator. We'll see you next time.