Anthropic's Generational Run, OpenAI Panics, AI Moats, Meta Loses Lawsuits

(0:00) Bestie intros!: Friedberg for Governor of California? (2:25) Anthropic's generational run (15:45) OpenAI: getting focused or panic mode? (36:56) AI valuation impacts, moats, and disruption (43:58) Liquidity speaker announcements, the 100x AI moment (50:35) Two landmark social media verdicts against Meta (1:12:46) Sacks and Friedberg join PCAST! Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://polymarket.com/event/which-company-has-the-best-ai-model-end-of-march-751 https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-chatgpt-side-projects-16b3a825 https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-sweetens-private-equity-pitch-amid-enterprise-turf-war-with-anthropic-2026-03-23 https://www.levernews.com/the-pentagons-ai-gatekeeper-holds-stock-in-anthropics-rival https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/2037111057701818519 https://x.com/chamath/status/2033385903520129161 https://x.com/TheIcahnist/status/2036902492080837015 https://www.google.com/finance/quote/GOOG:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/LVMUY:OTCMKTS https://x.com/cryptopunk7213/status/2023572182090109380 https://www.google.com/finance/quote/RACE:NYSE?comparison=OTCMKTS https://x.com/Vjay031/status/1985631799448662441 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-25/social-media-lawsuit-trial-meta-google-verdict

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

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. Fantastic Four, the original.

• 0:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, the cast is back.

• 0:08Jason Calacanis?

  The cast is back.

• 0:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Brothers in arms.

• 0:10Jason Calacanis?

  Brothers in arms. Here we go, good boys. We've got a big news week. David Sacks is back. And he's in the great state of Texas. How's it been, Sacks? How's Texas been for you so far?

• 0:23David Sacks?

  It's been great, although I just got back from DC. I got like three hours sleep last night. So, but we had a lot of news this past week.

• 0:31Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, and we'll be talking about Pcast and your role in the, and da, da, da, da, and your role going forward in the Trump administration. Big news that we'll be talking about today also relates to you. Oh, Sultan of Science David Friedberg, with your background from the iconic film, for those not watching, it looks like the iconic Thelma and Louise. I wonder if that has something to do with the budget of California, which you've been outspoken about recently.

• 0:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Great rant.

• 0:59Jason Calacanis?

  Which I retweeted.

• 1:01David Friedberg?

  Thank you, boys.

• 1:02David Sacks?

  I retweeted it, too. If only, if only you could be allowed the time and space to do those kinds of rants on this pod.

• 1:10David Friedberg?

  Thank you very much. Why does I say thank you, Jake Al starts talking over me? Here he is. He's going again. He's going again.

• 1:17Jason Calacanis?

  Dr. Doom, Dr. Doom, your mayor, your new governor. Would you consider it, Friedberg, after O'Halo, running for governor?

• 1:25David Friedberg?

  There is no after O'Halo.

• 1:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, please do it. Oh, please do it. Wow, that'd be so great. I'm tempted to buy O'Halo for like five or six billion, so he just does it.

• 1:34David Friedberg?

  It's a dirty game, Paul. It's California politics is dirty, man.

• 1:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't even know what it does. I'll just have somebody else deal with it.

• 1:40Jason Calacanis?

  Can you imagine the Oppo research you bought on Friedberg?

• 1:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, no. We get him elected. He would do an incredible job. He would save the fourth largest economy in the world. It would be incredible.

• 1:49Jason Calacanis?

  It'd be amazing.

• 1:50David Friedberg?

  I would love the.

• 1:51Jason Calacanis?

  Here's the Oppo research, Sacks. David Friedberg went to a rave in 1999 and stayed up until 10 a.m. We have witnesses.

• 2:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Once he, he got tilted at the poker game, stole a bunch of pistachios and lactaid and ran home.

• 2:06Jason Calacanis?

  He did.

• 2:25Jason Calacanis?

  Anthropic on a generational run and OpenAI crashing out a bit, boys. Let's chop it up here. Just looking at Anthropic, pretty major heater this year. January, they launched Cowork for business users. You know what that does, cron jobs. You can connect to your Gmail, your Notion, whatever it is. And then Opus 4.6, which consensus wise, everybody thought this is a major step function. Jensen, Michael Dell, everybody's called it out. Jensen actually called it back in November, an inflection point and the first agentic model. And Opus 4.6 has basically Dell said hit a threshold that we haven't seen before in

• 3:10Jason Calacanis?

  terms of real productivity in Teams. February, they dropped a bunch of Claude code plugins that caused the SaaS apocalypse, not the sax apocalypse, the SaaS, software as a service.

• 3:20David Sacks?

  It was a sax apocalypse, too.

• 3:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, there was a little bit of that back and forth as well.

• 3:25David Sacks?

  No, I mean, as a SaaS investor, it was a.

• 3:27Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, it was a bit of it. You were the tip of the spear there. We'll get into it.

• 3:32David Sacks?

  My exit comps were affected, that's all.

• 3:34Jason Calacanis?

  Yes. It seems like you may have divested at exactly the right time. All right. $6 billion in annual run rate was added in February alone. Brad referenced a couple of weeks ago here on the pod. Earlier this week, they announced computer use, a new agentic system for enterprise grade, kind of open claw functionality. Now you can use the Claude app from your phone to control your desktop computer. Really slick feature. Here's the calendar release over the past two months for the team at Anthropic. Dario, come on the pod anytime. Sax, you've had a couple of flare ups and obviously the administration and the Department

• 4:19Jason Calacanis?

  of War had their kerfluffle. But just, you know, looking at it objectively, what's your take on the surging Anthropic generational run as I've described it here?

• 4:32David Sacks?

  Well, I've never been a critic of Anthropic's products. I've always been an admirer of their products. I think last year I gave them credit for MCP. I agree that they seem to be performing very well now. The company made a big bet on coding as the kind of big breakout use case. Whether that was done for business reasons or ideological reasons, I'm not sure. Anthropic is sort of the most AGI-pilled of all the frontier labs, and I think they made this bet on coding as their way to get to a curse of self-improvement. As it turns out, it was a very good business move as well because code is the gateway into enterprise and enterprise IT budgets. And so they were able to grow revenue pretty quickly as a result of getting into enterprise.

• 5:15David Sacks?

  Also, coding seems to be the basis for these other product extensions. So like you said, they went from Claude Code to Claude Co-Work. The idea being that, well, if you can generate code, you can also generate PowerPoints or spreadsheets. And you do that by generating the code to create that output. So that was the first extension. Now they are extending into agents. This computer use product is kind of like an open claw knockoff. So it looks like the generational run for Mac Mini is just about over. Look, I think they're firing on all cylinders. My issues with them in the past were related to what I have called the regulatory capture strategy.

• 5:56David Sacks?

  They do want a permissioning regime in Washington for chips and models, meaning you have to go to Washington to get permission to release new models or to sell GPUs anywhere in the world. I think that's excessively heavy-handed. Their motives for doing that may be pure. It may not be regulatory capture. It may be ideologically motivated. Regardless, I do think it is a form of regulatory capture because it plays into the hands of the big companies and creates modes that new entrants will not be able to. Overcome. So I have, let's say, philosophical objection to that part of it. But again, I'm not detractor of their products by any means. With respect to what happened between them and the Pentagon, I'm not involved in that. I've stayed out of military procurement. In general, I don't get involved in

• 6:39David Sacks?

  what are called party matters. I just focus on policy matters which affect the whole space. I saw Emile Michael making this point a couple of weeks ago on our podcast, that if you as a company don't want your products to be used in war, don't sell to the Department of War. It's in the name. But if you do, if you do decide to sell to the Department of War, you should expect it to be used for all lawful uses. So I think that was a very pragmatic observation. Again, I just have to underscore this again. I'm not involved in that dispute. It's the base of a lawsuit right now. And I don't want someone trying to draw lines between dots that aren't there. So again, I'm staying out of that one.

• 7:21Jason Calacanis?

  Objectively, they've been treated the same as any other large language model, even though they're not fans of the administration, they're not donators to the administration. They have specifically been critical of the administration as a company, perhaps cynically, Friedberg as a strategy to get, you know, it's one of the conspiracy theories here in Silicon Valley is Dario is taking the position of being anti this administration, anti President Trump, in order to get all the PhDs, you know, it's like three or 4,000 of these highly sought after PhDs. And it's a way to have them, you know, vote with their presence to come work in anthropic. Your thoughts on that? And then just generally their generational ones?

• 8:02David Friedberg?

  I think he actually believes it. And I think they've actually created and fostered a culture of that since the beginning. And I think that they're representing it as a branding exercise at this point. But I don't think it's made up. I think it's directly representation of the people that work there and what they believe.

• 8:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And it's a strategic advantage, because probably of those 3,000 PhDs, 90% of them are left leaning and wouldn't want to work. Necessarily.

• 8:29David Friedberg?

  Look, I mean, like, like, like most things we see in the world today, in economics today, in markets today, in business today, everything seems to be politicized and you have a left and a right version of everything. You have a left and a right version of media. You have a left and a right version of what food to buy. You have a left and a right version of what AI tool to use. So, you know, this effectively may just be the natural manifestation in the AI market of what's going on elsewhere in society as we all kind of fracture and hustle over to our side.

• 8:57Jason Calacanis?

  All right, Chama, before I go to OpenAI and their recent moves, any thoughts on Anthropic and Dario's positioning of the company?

• 9:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Look, I think both are incredible businesses. We're in the part of the cycle where we're trying to create drama where I don't think drama exists because they're still fundamentally in very different go-to-market motions. Now, they may converge and compete over time, but I think it's important to separate where each of them are good. From an enterprise lens, which is where I see most of the action, particularly through 80, 90, it's all Anthropic all the time. And I agree with Sacks. My philosophical issues with the management aside around their ideology and sometimes how they use some of the capital for things other than tech and R and D, I have issues with those things. But in terms of the quality of that technical

• 9:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  team and what they create, it's head and shoulders above anything else. It allows us to build a vibrant business. Now, do I have issues with how much it costs? Yes. Do I have issues with how fast we're consuming tokens? Also, yes. But I think those will get sorted out and those are really tactical issues. So, the reason why I think we're all breathlessly trying to pit OpenAI versus Anthropic is because we want some drama. But the reality is, these are very different businesses. And Nick found this tweet, which I thought was really interesting. And because even at the absolute highest level,

• 10:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  These things are sort of presented in an apples to oranges way. And there's like these very basic issues of rev rec that are fundamentally different. And you may say, well, who cares about revenue recognition? Well, the people that are trying to write the headlines that say one is overtaking the other and this or that sort of miss the fact that they're in completely different businesses, which has guided how they even think about growth. And so if you normalize these two businesses, what you would see is OpenAI is still the overwhelming revenue generator in this space. And that over time Anthropic is catching up. And so this is this little diagram that tries to explain this. OpenAI is three quarters consumer subscriptions

• 11:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and a quarter API. Anthropic is almost the exact opposite. OpenAI is used by consumers overwhelmingly. Anthropic is used either directly or through things like GitHub and Cursor. OpenAI, as a result, has a very conservative way of recognizing revenue. Anthropics, they sort of recognize gross tonnage as their revenue. And so when you start to hear these things about like, oh, this thing is at 20 billion and OpenAI is at N billion. They're two totally different conversations. And I think right now it's more about the press cycle of trying to create clicks than it actually is about the underlying quality of each business. Both are incredible businesses as this demonstrates. And by the time it goes public,

• 11:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  both of these two businesses will have a very clean and I suspect normalized way of telling a story so that you can actually compare. But what I would tell people right now is everybody's running with numbers to try to create a narrative that I don't think makes sense or applies to either.

• 12:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And there's been a lot of strategy change. OpenAI, some people are saying is crashing out in panic mode. Obviously, they own the consumer with ChatGPT. They are the verb, like, you know, taking an Uber or Googling something. People, consumers always just say, hey, did you check ChatGPT? But obviously, other large language models are catching up. Here's a look at-

• 12:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can we say something to that, Jason? Because like-

• 12:36Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 12:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You mentor tons of startups. Sacks has done it. Freebrooke has done it. I do it. What is the one thing we tell folks? Focus, focus, focus, focus.

• 12:47Jason Calacanis?

  Hundred percent.

• 12:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Do one, maybe one and a half things, but do it incredibly, incredibly well.

• 12:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And everything else, you start to bleed and smear. What was that Brad Garland house term?

• 12:59Jason Calacanis?

  Peanut butter.

• 13:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Peanut butter. Yeah, you smear the peanut butter. Too far out. And so this is a good moment, by the way, if either of these two companies are in the smearing phase to recalibrate and reset because

• 13:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 13:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You just can't do everything.

• 13:14David Sacks?

  Speaking of smears, I couldn't help but notice that Emile Michael was smeared by an article, was it in Lever or something like that, accusing him of of having a conflict in the Anthropic dispute.

• 13:28Jason Calacanis?

  Conflict.

• 13:29David Sacks?

  Did you guys see that?

• 13:30Jason Calacanis?

  I didn't.

• 13:31David Friedberg?

  Yes, I saw the art. There is an article that said that he was an investor in perplexity. And therefore he's conflicted in his negotiation with Anthropic. That's what the article said pretty much.

• 13:43Jason Calacanis?

  Perplexity is L L M agnostic. That's a stupid claim.

• 13:47David Sacks?

  Right. Well, it's obviously written by people who don't understand anything about A I really.

• 13:51Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 13:52David Sacks?

  Perplexity is a rapper. You're like you're saying it uses multiple A I models. And I don't think they sell to the Pentagon. They're not a competitor to Anthropic. And moreover, as I understand it, Emile's ownership of shares in that company was blessed by the Office of Government Ethics. Nonetheless, I think the timing of this is very suspicious. And it reminds me of what happened to me when I started opposing Anthropic and all of a sudden there was that hit piece in the New York Times accusing me of having conflicts. And I'll just say that Anthropic may pose as this company that's on the side of the angels, but they've hired a number of very seasoned brass knuckle political operatives in Washington.

• 14:33David Sacks?

  And, you know, members of the Biden administration, Laura Lumer actually just had a piece today on one of them. I'm not going to rehash that. But the bottom line is this is, I think, frankly, a political operation that's willing to get down and dirty. And they're not always on the side of the angels. I think they can be quite ruthless.

• 14:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Sax, remember, I told you you get one Biden mention a month in 2026. So you just used it up. So I don't want any more Biden, Biden, Biden. He's retired.

• 14:58David Sacks?

  That was not a Biden mention.

• 15:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but the truth is.

• 15:03Jason Calacanis?

  These dipshits, whoever wrote this story, the actual best feature or amongst the best features of perplexity, which is actually got a really great cowork competitor called computer I've been playing with. I'm not a shareholder, to be clear. There's no book being pumped here. The model council is like the greatest feature that they have. And what is really brilliant about it is you ask it a question, Sax, it will go to all three different major models. You can pick which ones, including open source. Then it tells you where they differ, and it tries to figure out why they differ. This is like one of the great features of the product. I think perplexity is like, could be a really great company as well, even without a language model. But let's talk a little bit more about OpenAI here.

• 15:48Jason Calacanis?

  And their market share, because I think you're correct, Chamath, but they are getting off their game. Here's what's going on. Quick look at the consumer market.

• 15:58Jason Calacanis?

  And obviously, they started with 100% market share, right? They created the category in 2023.

• 16:05Jason Calacanis?

  Drop down to 85% market share 2024, 75% market share 2025.

• 16:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But by how much has the market grown?

• 16:13Jason Calacanis?

  Precisely. So the market is still growing. So in terms of number of searches and queries, they're obviously growing tremendously. But they have major, major competitors and the market share is going down. I had my team over at This Week in AI do a more thoughtful analysis of where this is going. And if you take a look at this, there's three players, and I'd like to get your guys' take on this, who really haven't shown up yet. Apple, Meta, and obviously Windows. All three of those underrepresented. If you give them credit for just getting, you know, a half point of market share here and starting to intercept, which I think those three players were here, will be here, they're going to be well under 50% market share. And I think

• 16:57Jason Calacanis?

  ChatGPT is going to have some big challenges there on the consumer side. While they're doing this stuff in consumer, they are cutting back on all their side projects. So you probably heard about the Sora video app. That's been shut down. This is kind of major news because Disney was going to put a billion dollars into OpenAI as part of it, and they had done a licensing deal and they were going to integrate Sora, this, you know, short video product into Disney Plus. All of that's now been canceled.

• 17:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The billion is not going in?

• 17:28Jason Calacanis?

  The billion's not going in, the licensing deal, all of that. And then in addition, there's supposedly at OpenAI, a newfound focus on chasing Anthropic down the enterprise path. So getting off their game, getting a little discombobulated perhaps, or maybe getting focused on what matters, which is enterprise, apparently in terms of revenue. OpenAI also offered private equity investors a guaranteed minimum return of 17.5% as part of a joint venture that would help PE firms deploy AI and ease the high upfront cost of that. So lots of questions here, Chamath.

• 18:08Jason Calacanis?

  I don't know if you've tracked this PE model, but obviously a lot of people are doing rollups in services, accounting, legal. Josh Kushner's got a big effort here, a bunch of private equity firms trying to essentially, I guess, N run the transition process and arguably what you're doing with the software factory at 8090. So your thoughts on OpenAI and this pivot and this private equity?

• 18:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think it makes a lot of sense for OpenAI to focus on a few things and do them exceptionally well. I disagree slightly with your first part, which is I think that people like to make new decisions about new experiences. And I think that OpenAI has incredible consumer mind share. I just see like how my kids use it. They started there and it's very hard to get them to switch, even when I say, hey, have you tried Gemini? They use Gemini. And to your point, the reason is because they stumble into it more.

• 19:05Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 19:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But if you give them a cold navigation experience, they rely on ChatGPT. And it's the same, by the way, on the other side in the enterprise. If you give us a cold problem.

• 19:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  My default reaction would be to use Anthropic. Now, I actually think that that's quite healthy because you're going to segregate the market. And I think, look, if you go into the Wayback Machine, when we first started talking about this thing, this is sort of how we all postulated this would work, where even if OpenAI just won the consumer business, it is a multi-trillion-dollar company with enormous scale and value. And I think that that's okay. So I think that what they probably need to do is say, where are we the strongest? Where is there the most obvious traction?

• 19:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Can traction in another market like an enterprise bleed into consumer usage?

• 19:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If it's true, then you have to win the enterprise. I think winning the enterprise, though, is a very different game than winning consumer. Very different set of features, very different set of expectations. So I think people either have to decide you're going to compete everywhere, or pick one thing and just nail it. And if I was OpenAI and you had to pick one thing, you would pick consumer because they're the juggernaut and they're the clear leader and they have an enormous brand.

• 20:23Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, let me pull you into this because my base case here is that all consumer queries are going to be free. Apple's going to make them free. They're already free for Google. I think Meta's going to make them free and actually have a decent product soon. And Microsoft, same thing. ChatGPT has decided to push off advertising. They were going to put advertising in it. You remember they got mocked by Anthropic with their Super Bowl ads. So what do you think's going to happen on the consumer side? Consumers generally don't pay for services. That's usually five to 20% of the market is paid services and everything else is free and ad-supported. But it looks like Apple and Google are going to just let it rip. So that could take the revenue oxygen away from ChatGPT.

• 21:08Jason Calacanis?

  So what is your thought here on who wins consumer?

• 21:11David Friedberg?

  I don't think that it's going to be free. I think there's 290 million subscribers for Spotify. They're paying, what are they paying, 20 bucks a month or something?

• 21:22Jason Calacanis?

  Probably less on average because it's global number, but yeah.

• 21:25David Friedberg?

  Netflix has 325 million paid subscribers. And AI that can book your travel, answer questions for you, track your calendar, do your email, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, is likely going to be the most valuable, call it meta-service that consumers have ever seen. And I think it's very likely that we're going to end up seeing many more consumers subscribe to a consumer AI service than we've seen even with cable television. I mean, think about your cellphone. Everyone's paying 50, 60 bucks a month for a cellphone. Why not pay 80 bucks a month?

• 21:56Jason Calacanis?

  More, more.

• 21:56David Friedberg?

  More, 100 bucks?

• 21:57Jason Calacanis?

  You pay 100 bucks. And by the way, in the pandemic, remember what we saw? The two things that people refused to cancel was not your mortgage payment or any car payment. You were willing to go into arrears and into default. The two things that people would would always keep was the cellphone number one and then electricity number two. ChatGPT will be there.

• 22:16David Friedberg?

  So I think that's going to be the case with these consumer apps. I think that they're all going to be like ultra valuable and they're going to layer in services on top of them. Like, for example, do you want to watch video embedded in your consumer AI app? Do you want your consumer AI app to, you know, do your finances for you? And it could be that the consumer AI app becomes the new platform, much like the iPhone was for the app economy. There could almost be, whether it's through kind of connectors or embedded tools, an incredible ecosystem that where traditionally advertisers actually pay to be embedded and show up inside of the AI app. And the consumer can either pay for it or the advertiser can pay for it. So I think there's going to be a very different economic model and still very early days.

• 23:00Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks, the numbers right now would be more in my estimation, about 50 million people subscribe to ChatGPT. They got a billion users or they're trended to a billion. I think they probably hit it in the next month or two. Certainly they had 900 million two or three months ago. So it's about 5%. Where do you think this winds up? Do you think it becomes? You know, three hundred, four hundred, five hundred million consumers are willing to pay twenty bucks a month for this? Or do you think it's more free and the data and the ad supportedness of it? Go the meta and the Google route?

• 23:33David Sacks?

  I think it's possible that you could get a few hundred million subscribers for the premium tier. Look, I think most consumers will take the free service in exchange for advertising, right? Some ad supported model, which by the way, I think could be quite successful. When ChatGPT started displacing Google for search, a lot of people were predicting the death of of Google's model. Because who'd want to look at ten blue links? I think that's true, but I think you can do something much more compelling in AI chat compared to just a list of links. So in any event, I think ad supported models might make a comeback here in addition to premium models. All that being said, though, you know, as an investor, I always liked B to B businesses better than B to C.

• 24:17David Sacks?

  Because it is hard to monetize consumers. Their willingness to pay is not that high and they tend to have high churn rates. Whereas businesses tend to be very sticky and you can upsell them and you can get more than a hundred percent net dollar retention year over year. So if you can make an enterprise business work, it's always been a model I've I've liked. But, you know, that being said, obviously, some of the most valuable companies in the world are consumer companies. Meta, Google, Apple, these are all consumer first companies. And look, I think ultimately both models can work.

• 24:51Jason Calacanis?

  Obviously, both can work. Question is, which one? I guess it really comes down to how motivated do we think Google and Facebook will be to build that bridge from their ad networks? To their AI offerings, obviously, Facebook is kind of MIA in all of this, but Google is not. And I think that will be the determinant here is.

• 25:11David Sacks?

  Well, Google is going to compete very vigorously for the consumer because it is existential to them. I mean, it's very clear that search and AI chat are kind of merging into one space. That means that ad links will kind of merge into being in chat advertising. So they have to adapt with that and compete for the consumer. I also think that Google is in an outstanding position to do the whole open claw thing. Because they already have access to your calendar, your documents, your email. So the agent doesn't really have to earn your trust because you already trust Google with all of your stuff.

• 25:46Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 25:46David Sacks?

  So I'm kind of waiting for the Google version of open claw. Because I don't really want to share all my documents with some new service.

• 25:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  They're the only one that has so much free cash flow that they can almost view it as two separate companies, which it effectively is, you know, GCP over here runs the enterprise play and then Google Consumer over here runs the consumer chatbot play and they can keep them segregated. That's so much harder for a startup to do because on top of just keeping everybody organized, you have the financing problem of constantly having to raise more money because you don't yet have a profit engine that spits out cash. They're probably the only one. And you can see it in the valuations after, which I'm going to get to in a second, but people believe the durability of Google more than they believe the durability of anything else.

• 26:33Jason Calacanis?

  And Sax, I think you weren't on the pod last week or maybe two or three weeks ago, but Google has announced Google Workspace Studio to do AI automation and it's, yeah, it's online and people are playing with it already. So they have joined the open claw party.

• 26:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, Jay Cal, you asked a different question earlier as well, which is around the PE story. And I think the PE story is a window into the rest of the broader market. The real open question is, what are these companies worth? There's like a very threshold question. It's sort of like a very important fork in the road right at the outset, which is, do you believe that we're on a path to superintelligence where everything is incredible, where there's infinite abundance, where you can magically describe things and beautiful things appear, complex things appear, groundbreaking things appear? Or do you believe that it's good next generational software? And the answer to that question is really important because we're financing things like it's the former.

• 27:33Jason Calacanis?

  And GC has a big move in this. Hamant was on the program in January when we did the interview show and he's got GC buying up. Enrolling up accounting firms, et cetera, healthcare firms, hospitals, et cetera. This seems to be part of the future of venture capital is taking AI, Sacks, and actually buying out, or I should say, big VC, kind of starting to look like private equity, buying out hospitals, accounting firms, business processing firms in India, putting them all together and then running them with AI. So, any final thoughts on that, Sacks, as a business strategy?

• 28:11David Sacks?

  Well, I think it's interesting. They're kind of betting on the idea that they can own the change management around AI. And this is the thing is everyone just kind of assumes that you throw AI over a wall and the business just automatically knows how to use it and drive efficiency from it. And what we're seeing is it's pretty difficult. Chamath, you've seen that. There's McKinsey studies showing that like 95% of enterprise pilots aren't successful. There's tremendous value, latent value in AI, but it's hard to know exactly how to deploy it at this point in time. So I guess what these private equity firms are saying is that we know how to drive value from this. And if we own the business and then own the change management, then we'll be able to, you know, create value that way.

• 28:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Their business model makes solving this problem existential. And this is sort of along the lines of this essay that I wrote. Let me just give you the thought exercise and you guys react. Today, we live in a world where the whole market is trying to debate, what is the PE ratio that you'd be willing to pay? So Facebook is incredibly durable. I'm willing to pay 30 times. Nvidia is really durable. I'm willing to pay 40 times. Tesla is incredibly asymmetric to the upside. I'm willing to pay 200 times. And then Caterpillar or John Deere, I'm willing to pay 15 times. I'm just using these as an example. And what it's effectively signaling to you is how durable all of these cash flows are.

• 29:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And all we do in the public markets when we make an investment is we're just guessing. When do the cash flows run out? And we try to say, well, here's how much it's worth and here's how much I'd be willing to pay for today.

• 29:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But if you go back to this example and you say, well, what if there's this superintelligence on the horizon? I think it's fair to ask the question, what is anything worth?

• 30:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And what is anything worth in year 10, or year 15, or year 20? Because if you have infinite abundance and you have all this creativity, won't all companies be disrupted? And won't we be in this constant churn of everything getting disrupted all the time? And if you were faced with that problem in the public markets, how would you react? And I think the canary in the coal mine are the SaaS stocks. Yes, we jokingly call it the SaaS apocalypse, but I think it's much more important. I think it's a big societal question. How do you view capital markets? How do you view the health of a company? In a world where we've been told there's a superintelligence on the horizon that makes everything much more fragile than it was before.

• 30:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And the market reaction is to put all these companies on a spectrum, and they started here in software, and they're rerating everything down. And they're changing the way that things are being framed, from price to equity, to a multiple of the cash that you have on hand. And I think that has huge implications, mostly to Silicon Valley, and largely to employees, because we all sell the dream. We start a company and we're like, okay, small salary, big equity upside. But that's implicitly saying in 15 or 20 years, this thing is going to be worth some gigantic number. But if instead, every business gets disrupted every five or six years, all you're going to end up with is just the cash. And so what should employees do?

• 31:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The rational reaction from employees will say, you know what, I don't want your equity, give me more money. And if all of a sudden you do that, the valuation multiples and the complexity changes again. So I had my team put this chart together. Okay, what is this? Took a handful of SaaS companies and took the mag six. And I just said, okay, if you take the market cap and you divide it by the annual free cash flow, what that tells you is how many years does it take to get back? If you bought a share of stock, how many years does it take from the free cash flow to come back so that you've earned back the cost of one share? Snowflake, in 2023, it would have taken you almost 100 years. And where is it now? It's been cut in half.

• 32:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  ServiceNow, it's last year, Workday, you see it. And I think what this speaks to is the beginning of this rerationalization in the public markets of saying if superintelligence is coming, we have to be very careful about what we're willing to pay for these things. But if you look on the right-hand side and the Mag7, what's so interesting is Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet, the market has completely flipped the other way. And what they're saying is, we believe that these cash flows are essentially monopolistically durable forever. That's the only reason why you would walk them up like this, except Nvidia, which is the most unbelievably accretive,

• 32:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  well-run company, highest margins, you know, making $200 billion. And they're treating it like they're treating ServiceNow and Snowflake. I just think it's so interesting what's happening. I can't explain this, but here, this data sort of shows this reset that we're going through, a very complicated reset in the capital.

• 33:14Jason Calacanis?

  Fraber, what's your take on this reset as Chamath describes it? Do you think this is just a flight to the quality of the free cash flow of the Mag6 and just how much cash they print? And then maybe the other ones are smaller footprints and they're just more disruptible? We had this discussion many years that Google and Apple, Microsoft, they would all be disrupted at some point, Facebook, and that just simply hasn't happened. They've gotten much more nimble at copying products or incorporating, you know, features and products into their core offering. So your thoughts?

• 33:47David Friedberg?

  It's probably generally correct that there will be a decline, but there's also the selective opportunity. Did you guys see the LP slides that went on the internet from Tomo Braava's LP conference?

• 33:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, those are great.

• 33:59David Friedberg?

  Nick, maybe you could find that. They kind of highlight that within the broad market scape, there are companies that are not just going to sit idly by and let AI kind of delete their business value, but they're integrating AI themselves and they've got high-quality people to do so, and they're reinventing their product themselves. So they've already got a beachhead, they've already got customer access, they've already got enterprise users. And in fact, if they can integrate AI into their Products and into their tools. There's almost this like selective dispersion that happens in the market. And so the winners are going to win, I think, truly in every market. Not just in software, but across every market, including in industrial supply chains. On who is going to implement and utilize AI tools and agents.

• 34:44David Friedberg?

  Uh, to do work and it's going to expand the work productivity. Of that organization, not just create new features, which is what we focus on when we talk about software companies. But really imagine a complex business being able to do. 10 times the output it can do today with the same capital equipment and the same labor force.

• 35:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Free bird, what do you pay for in a world of superintelligence versus in a world of? Non-superintelligence in terms of the durability of a business?

• 35:10David Friedberg?

  Yeah, it's hard to say, man. I mean, we, we don't know, right? And that's why all the discount rates are going through the roof. And that's why the valuations are collapsing because we just don't know what multiple. Or what discount rate you apply or what terminal growth rate or which, which effectively implies.

• 35:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you do in your PA? Like, do you say?

• 35:26David Friedberg?

  I don't think Disneyland is going anywhere. You know, I think there's some stuff that you could say is the counter AI portfolio and the counter AI portfolio, I think it's like physical experiences.

• 35:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Halo, they call it Halo, high asset, low obsolescence.

• 35:39David Friedberg?

  Okay, that's a great, yeah, I'm not a big. Investor trader like you guys, but that makes a lot of sense. I mean, I think that's like intuitively to me. That seems to be an area where people are going to be spending a lot of time and they're gonna. They're going to have durability in those businesses. I, I think businesses like nat gas production, you know, I just bought LNG, that Cheniere company.

• 35:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Cheniere, yeah.

• 35:59David Friedberg?

  Cheniere, yeah. Given, I bought Cheniere, given all the craziness in the Middle East. And you know, I visited there with Doug Burgum. So it was the first time I'd ever been exposed to this business and I checked it out.

• 36:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's a great business. It's a great business, really well run business.

• 36:10David Friedberg?

  So I think that's got durability, obviously unless it gets blown up by some enemy. Uh, that would, that would be a problem.

• 36:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So the Adams thesis that TK shared.

• 36:19David Friedberg?

  Adams, real life, mining is a great one.

• 36:23David Friedberg?

  Obviously, I think the space industry is going to be a lot bigger than we recognize. I actually think there's probably a 15 to 30 trillion dollar a year economic opportunity on the moon. That kind of a business, like you're going to see with SpaceX's IPO, is going to have an insane multiple. So I think to your point, Chamath, there's a lot of stuff getting steamrolled here with crazy high discount rates where you just don't know. And there's a bunch of stuff where the pathway over the next 15 to 30 years is maybe independent or unlocked because of AI. And then there's a bunch of stuff that's just unaffected. And that that starts to get a higher multiple because that's where capital starts to flow.

• 36:56Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, there are probably three things that we would agree are great moats for businesses. Brands, network effects, and the management team. Those come into play here as well, yeah?

• 37:07David Sacks?

  I don't know if I would consider a management team to be a moat. I mean, it's like Warren Buffett says, that you want businesses that are so strong that they could be run by a bunch of monkeys because one day they probably will be.

• 37:18Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I was thinking more like, obviously Elon and Tesla is going to just relentlessly innovate.

• 37:23David Friedberg?

  It's a great point, by the way, and it's true, especially in the age of agentic AI.

• 37:27David Sacks?

  Yeah, I mean, look, I think though that just upleveling a bit, I think you are right that the key question is moats. Because I do think that there are still strong moats in a lot of different kinds of businesses. And a lot of them are very subtle. Like you said, some of our network effects, some of them are the difficulty of producing physical world products, things like that. So there's a lot of different types of moats out there, and that is the key question as we enter a world of, let's call it, digital abundance.

• 37:56Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, the the network effect of Apple's ecosystem, and they have hardware, right? And they've been just on that path of making their own silicon. That's incredibly defensive, and they have brand, right? So that is pretty strong for Apple. And then you'd take Tesla, the same thing. You got Elon relentlessly innovating, and it's hard hardware stuff. And then if you look at Meta and Google, these are incredible brands with great management teams and constantly innovating.

• 38:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If I had to bet, I'm going to bet that brands go to zero.

• 38:25Jason Calacanis?

  Really?

• 38:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, because I think that when you can make things that are as good or better, and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand.

• 38:39Jason Calacanis?

  Example?

• 38:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So the perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW.

• 38:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know what Tesla did to Mercedes, what Tesla did to Porsche, what BYD and Geely have done to the car manufacturing cycle in China. This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product. Yes, it's got a great brand, but nobody's going to pay a premium for these products. The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison. That's also true for the cars in China. So I think it's the opposite. I think that brands and the pricing power of brands, other than maybe premium luxury goods, but even that's eroding. Like, look at the stock, like, I don't know, Nick, show the stock chart of LVMH or Ferrari.

• 39:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is not a commentary on the quality of the actual product, but what this shows in erosion of pricing power. All of these things are being eroded away.

• 39:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this would be the value prop, most people in brands would just say value propositioning. So JetBlue is a value brand, Tesla Model Y, perfect example of a value brand. And if you look at Apple's recent cohort, what did they focus on? The Apple MacBook Neo, which is a value laptop, 600 bucks, 700 bucks. So they're even going down market to try to capture that value.

• 40:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And to your point, maybe the right word is abundance, like the brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they are able to bring more at the same unit cost or less, capture share. That's probably true.

• 40:19Jason Calacanis?

  You know what's interesting about that, Chama? As we open up the aperture of this, if you, one of the thesis we talked about here a couple of years ago, say, what happens with AI disruption, job disruption, et cetera? Costs coming down on cars with Model Y getting cheaper, Cybercab coming in, BYD, obviously, if you go to any foreign country, BYDs are everywhere and they cost 15 grand.

• 40:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Then you look at Apple making the Neo, that's a $600 laptop. Everything getting cheaper seems to be happening.

• 40:48David Sacks?

  I just think it's very hard to know which of these companies is going to be disrupted. A year ago on this pod, we were saying that Google was going to be toast, or some of us were saying it.

• 40:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's the opposite.

• 40:57David Sacks?

  Okay, fine, but you know, it looked to us like ChatGPT was taking a massive share from Google Search and the AdWords model was becoming obsolete. Now, because of the success of Gemini and the potential for personal digital assistants, personal agents, I think we're probably pretty bullish on that company. And look at their stock chart. It reflects that. I mean, I think it's doubled in the last year. Now you take something like Apple, on the other hand, and I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'll just throw out a counterfactual, which is what if your personal digital assistant or a personal agent gets so good that you don't need to check your phone, you just tell it what to do. And you don't need the wall of apps anymore. I mean, the way that you call an Uber won't be to

• 41:41David Sacks?

  punch a few buttons, you'll just tell it what to do. So you could imagine the phone operating system getting disrupted if the agents are good enough.

• 41:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're on to something huge, because what you're saying is, I can confirm this to you.

• 41:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  89, we sell enterprise software. I'll tell you three conversations with huge enterprises asked exactly what you just said, and we jokingly called it strangulation as a service, which is, they all say the same thing, what you just said. Okay, look, get all this complicated UI out of the way. Get all of these products out of the way. Find a way to create a shim where I can just write what I need, tell it what I needed to do. It deals with all this complexity in the background. I never want to see these things ever again. And that's what people want, to your point. They want, they want to be able to like, say, okay, pay this with my Venmo or use my MX in this situation, or get me that flight in some way, and have all these wonderfully smart agents do all the work behind the scenes.

• 42:35Jason Calacanis?

  And that's actually tracks with exactly what I've seen with Open Claw, perplexity computer, Claude Co-Work, instead of going to your Notion, instead of going into your Gmail, instead of pulling up your calendar, you ask it, hey, what's on my schedule this week? It brings it to you. So you could, you could have a dumb, you know, flat terminal. You know, chat interface on the hundred dollar device and it would do just as good.

• 42:58David Sacks?

  Just to make the counter argument against myself, I mean,

• 43:01Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 43:01David Sacks?

  Even though I think that you'll just increasingly tell your agent what to do instead of be clicking around or, you know, touching the screen, you still need a dashboard or a user interface to like, check on it and just see readouts of information. You still need to be able to visualize it. Where is the Uber that I've asked to be sent to me? How far away is it? Still want to see it on a map. So I could imagine that even if, let's say, you know, Siri plus plus becomes the dominant way of interacting with your iPhone, you'll still want that Apple user interface. Hard to say. I mean, I see a lot of people out there tweeting that Apple is brilliant for kind of missing the whole AI wave and not spending a lot of money on data centers or CapEx. And then there's other people who say, well, wait a second.

• 43:46David Sacks?

  They're, they're missing critical capabilities. Then there's a question of, well, will they be able to make deals for, you know, an AI powered Siri? I don't know. I think this is very hard to know at this point in time.

• 43:58Jason Calacanis?

  All right. And we will be discussing all these hard topics at liquidity. May 31st through June 3rd. Chamath, some big announcements here from you. You have taken control. This is what happens in the game of thrones known as the all in corporation LLC, the partnership, if we can call it that.

• 44:19David Friedberg?

  Partnership.

• 44:20Jason Calacanis?

  The chaotic partnership.

• 44:22David Friedberg?

  No mids.

• 44:23Jason Calacanis?

  There, it literally is chaos.

• 44:26David Sacks?

  Wait, wait, wait. Why are we doing this in California? I don't even think I can, I can go back to the state at this point in time.

• 44:30Jason Calacanis?

  You can come for 48 hours, make an appearance.

• 44:33David Friedberg?

  By the way, there are some people, Sacks, that fly in.

• 44:35David Sacks?

  Days in state at this point in time.

• 44:37Jason Calacanis?

  I love it. I love it. You can do 48 hours. It's okay. Well, Gavin Newsom might meet you at the airport. You could get picked up at the airport.

• 44:43David Friedberg?

  The, by the way, the airport is about 10 minutes from the venue. You could fly in and fly out same day and you don't have an overnight.

• 44:49Jason Calacanis?

  No, that's true.

• 44:50David Sacks?

  Is that how it's counted?

• 44:51David Friedberg?

  That's how, it's counted as an overnight in California.

• 44:53Jason Calacanis?

  Head on pillow. Yeah. You can come in on Monday.

• 44:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Then fly out to incline, sleep, you know, at our friend's house and then fly back in on Tuesday and then fly back out. You'll be fine.

• 45:03Jason Calacanis?

  Or you could fly to Vegas, do a blackjack run overnight, blackjack run, and then you come back in the morning. We just freshen up, just get your fresh shirt.

• 45:11David Sacks?

  Nice and rested.

• 45:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let me announce the next two speakers.

• 45:14Jason Calacanis?

  Oh my God, I'm so excited. But just for background, Tramoff comes into this thing. Liquidity was this little conference I did. It's now part of All In. And I start setting up all the speakers and then Tramoff goes, not good enough. I'm not showing up unless I pick all speakers. And you know what Friedberg and I did? Well, finally, this melon farmer is going to actually do some work. Great.

• 45:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What did you call me?

• 45:33Jason Calacanis?

  Melon farmer. It's a, when they play a Quentin Tarantino movie on like TV, instead of saying mother effer, Samuel L. Jackson says melon farmer.

• 45:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, I see.

• 45:47Jason Calacanis?

  So this melon farmer took unilateral control of the 10 speakers. 10 speaker slots, very coveted.

• 45:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, so we've announced Dan Loeb. We've announced Sarah Fryer.

• 45:58Jason Calacanis?

  Incredible.

• 45:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And I'm very, very, very honored and excited to announce that Bill Ackman and Andre Karpathy will also be speaking at Liquidity.

• 46:08Jason Calacanis?

  It's four heavy hitters, six to go.

• 46:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Two more goats on the roster of goats.

• 46:13Jason Calacanis?

  So goated.

• 46:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And we have a handful of other.

• 46:17Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, there might be some surprise guests, unannounced guests show up.

• 46:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  TBD, can't say TBD.

• 46:21Jason Calacanis?

  TBD.

• 46:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  More announced soon, but we're making.

• 46:24Jason Calacanis?

  Let's get Dario to show up. Hey, Dario, come to the show. Come hang out with the All In boys.

• 46:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm really excited. Actually, you know what Andre's gonna do? What Andre agreed to do is he's gonna do like a five or 10 minutes of slides on like the future of the world with AI and then we'll do a fireside.

• 46:38Jason Calacanis?

  Love it. That's gonna be tremendous. And you know, he's, uh, he's been on a heater himself with his recursive GitHub.

• 46:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh dude, auto research is incredible. And Bill Ackman has a ton of points of view on all of this stuff. So we'll get a lot of his thoughts. I want to give a shout out to Friedberg because when we did the interview with Jensen, he's like, guys, I was like, I like had a glass of wine on a Sunday. I coded a replacement to my HR IAS system. I asked all my team to do it. And I was like, oh my God, this is incredible. So I asked our folks, I'm like, hey, I don't like the website. This is 80/90. And the next day they're like, yeah, we vibe coded a new one. We'll have it up. And then I'm like, well, do you like the CTAs and how it's doing? They're like, no, no, no, no. We put it into auto research and we doubled the click through rate. And I was like.

• 47:24Jason Calacanis?

  To Freebrooke's point, this was, this would have been many man months, tens of people. And instead, all these recipes, by the way, these playbooks, you know, like the person that runs growth at OpenAI publishes his recipes.

• 47:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, you've been clawpilled. That's it. You've been one-shotted.

• 47:43Jason Calacanis?

  It's really incredible. This is why, like, I mean, you commented on my post yesterday. I wake up every day and my head spins. I'm like, what is, what is going on in the world?

• 47:51David Friedberg?

  It's crazy. Like, every day feels like a new era right now.

• 47:55Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 47:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And

• 47:56Jason Calacanis?

  It's disoriented.

• 47:58David Friedberg?

  Because, because I think what's really interesting is you pull what would have normally been something that's, call it a period of timeout, like a year out or two years out. And you can pull it in and say, I can get that done in three days and I don't need to hire people. All the sequencing and staging that would normally go into accomplishing something has been reduced. And then the time rushes in. So all your ideas rush into you. And they're all like immediately accessible. And that's why it's like so every day is like, oh, my God.

• 48:24Jason Calacanis?

  It's disorientating. Yeah.

• 48:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah.

• 48:25Jason Calacanis?

  That is, I have, I bought the domain name annotated.com like 15 years ago for four grand. And I wanted to create a service, like a bookmark service, Jomath, where you like highlight a paragraph from the New York Times and then you write your comments on it, saves it and you basically have the service. And I was talking to some developer on my making it and I literally vibe coded it and the Chrome extension this past week. And I was like, okay, I've been sitting on this domain and project for like 15 years and I did it in a weekend.

• 48:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Isn't it crazy?

• 48:55Jason Calacanis?

  Weird. It's like very weird.

• 48:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's really, it's really crazy.

• 48:58Jason Calacanis?

  This makes it feel like a simulation to me that everything can just manifest itself. It's the Star Trek version of the world. Like, remember the replicator sacks where you just say Earl Grey tea at this temperature? That's happening in business now. You're like CRM system, build annotated.com, build this new website for 80, 90. Boop. And it's a replicator just gives it to you. It's very strange.

• 49:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I've only felt this feeling twice. Once I was on the outside looking in. I was a derivative trader in Toronto. I was looking at the first dot com wave and I was like, I gotta be a part of this. How do I get to be a part of this?

• 49:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I got a job in, I went amp and kind of the rest was history.

• 49:44Jason Calacanis?

  Winamp, the original iTunes.

• 49:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But I missed the wave financially, didn't do anything for me, but I was in the right place.

• 49:52Jason Calacanis?

  You got to the beach with a surfboard. That's all that matters.

• 49:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Then the second wave I crushed and the move to mobile and social. But this way feels like a hundred times bigger than that.

• 50:02Jason Calacanis?

  It's a tsunami by comparison. I, I, I had three of these.

• 50:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's probably what it's like to be at Nazaret in Portugal. You guys ever see those clips of like that crazy place?

• 50:11Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, sixty foot waves.

• 50:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hundred foot waves or whatever, and you're just towed in and you're like, okay, let's just.

• 50:16Jason Calacanis?

  Here we go. This could end one of two ways.

• 50:18Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Let it go.

• 50:19Jason Calacanis?

  Glory or goodbye.

• 50:22Jason Calacanis?

  No, I, it was like literally when I first saw a PC. When I first got on the internet and then saw a mosaic, like those two moments in the early nineties. And then seeing the iPhone, I think that like those three moments.

• 50:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The iPhone was very special.

• 50:35Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Rough week for Zach. Two verdicts went against Meta in two days. They were first found liable for allowing child predators to access minors on Facebook and Instagram. New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay three hundred seventy five million in damages. The AG's office there ran an undercover investigation. They created fake child profiles, Facebook, Instagram. These accounts were contacted by predators. People showed up, yada, yada, yada. A whistleblower and former Meta engineer testified that his own fourteen year old daughter received sexual solicitations on Instagram. Then on Wednesday, an LA jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing addictive platforms. That harmed the young user's mental health.

• 51:16Jason Calacanis?

  Basically, the plaintiff in this case, Sax, said they started using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine. And she testified that features like notifications, algorithms made the app so addictive that it caused depression and anxiety through that compulsive use.

• 51:34Jason Calacanis?

  You have some thoughts on this and we we had Jonathan Haidt, right? Didn't we do an interview together? Wasn't that one of the first joint interviews?

• 51:41David Friedberg?

  You and I did. You and I did, yeah.

• 51:43Jason Calacanis?

  Incredible book. These things are obviously addicting.

• 51:46David Friedberg?

  He had a very important point, which is to try and keep kids off cell phones and social media until they're 16 and he was kind of cheerleading this this verdict. But, you know, I'll take a little bit of a contrarian to the popular kind of sentiment on this. And I'll just talk broadly about this idea of tort litigation. Tort litigation, you know, costs our economy $900 billion a year in the United States. 900 billion a year. That's how much is spent on the litigation costs, the settlements, the judgments. It's 3% of GDP and it's growing roughly 10% per year. And these civil penalties decided by juries, like they're, you know, going against big companies like Meta and YouTube, but it's also food companies, restaurants, everything. Anytime there's a window to sue someone and and extract

• 52:32David Friedberg?

  value from them, tort firms are all over them. You know, it's called the tort tax now in America. It's not just losses paid by the companies. Because fundamentally, when a big company pays out these tort taxes, they're going to invest less. There's less R and D, less product development, costs stay high. There's new fewer new product launches and there's all these crazy restrictions on stuff. So, you know, look, I I agree, social media causes immense harm. Particularly causes harm for kids. Kids should not be on social media until they're 16. Absolutely agree. Maybe adults shouldn't either, be on, you know, as adults. But fundamentally, I think there's an important question that we often ignore, which is who is fundamentally responsible for that harm? You know, should the sugar beet and sugarcane farmers be responsible for diabetes in America?

• 53:17David Friedberg?

  Should the soda companies be responsible? The retailers selling the soda? The FDA for not stopping at all? And fundamentally, I think we have to ask the question, what role does individual choice play? And individual responsibility play in this equation? If everything is a liability.

• 53:33Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think?

• 53:33David Friedberg?

  If anything, I I think we have to take personal responsibility. I think the parents that are absent taking care of their children are responsible for harm to their kids. You shouldn't let your kid play with a kid. Gun. You shouldn't let your kid go to some sketchy neighborhood after hours by themselves. You shouldn't let your kid play video games a hundred hours a week. You shouldn't let your kids eat nothing but soda and potato chips. You have responsibility as a parent, and I think parents should keep kids off screens and keep kids off social media. Once the harms are known of excess use or the harms are known of exposure to this sort of thing. I think there's responsibility that sits with the parents.

• 54:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What about things like tobacco or processed food or?

• 54:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this is the key.

• 54:14David Friedberg?

  Yeah, and I look, I mean, the same, the same is true of alcohol. I mean, dude, like alcohol is terrible for you. There's nothing good about alcohol. But I think I should have a choice on whether or not I want to consume alcohol, whether or not I consume tobacco, whether or not I consume processed goods. And the recognition that it's bad for you should be publicized by the government should be publicized by the government.

• 54:32Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If I had to summarize, what you would say is product liability law makes no sense. There should be human liability and human responsibility expectations in a society.

• 54:41David Friedberg?

  We never talk about responsibility. We always talk about where the government failed us and where these companies [BLEEP] us. And we never talk about what did we individually do wrong? How did I individually choose to eat a hundred [BLEEP] sodas a week? How did I individually choose to get my kids addicted to social media? Where the [BLEEP] was I as a parent? Like, we don't talk about our responsibility. And by the way, this fundamentally addresses this point about human agency, which I think is more critical in this era than ever. Because AI is going to flood us with [BLEEP] everything all the time, nonstop. What we choose to do in a world where we're already getting everything and how we choose to not take everything that's being offered to us. I think it's a critical part of what's going to destroying is human success from human failure.

• 55:22David Friedberg?

  And it's going to become more apparent in the future. And not everything is about liability and not everything is about the government failing us. It's about people making choices and we don't talk about it.

• 55:32Jason Calacanis?

  What I'll counter, I, I agree, personal choice, super important. What you're probably leaving out here, yeah, which you're definitely leaving out here. Is when these companies know they're doing something damaging and they do it anyway. That was the key to the RJR Novisco case.

• 55:50David Friedberg?

  What about, what about a whiskey company selling whiskey to an alcoholic?

• 55:55Jason Calacanis?

  So.

• 55:56David Friedberg?

  What about a potato chip company selling potato chips to an obese person?

• 55:59Jason Calacanis?

  I'll put those two aside because I don't think we've seen major cases about that. But I will say the auto industry knew for a long time about seatbelts. You remember that and they didn't deploy them. RJR, Nabisco, they knew that these were addictive and they designed the cigarettes to become more addictive. And they didn't tell people about the health risks. Asbestos, same thing, lead paint, same thing. This has happened over and over again where corporations subvert the release of information to make additional profits. So the question here with Facebook is, did they know how addicted these were? Did they know kids were being assaulted sexually and they could have done something about it? Or didn't they?

• 56:43Jason Calacanis?

  And so agree that there's too much litigation.

• 56:45David Friedberg?

  That's absolutely true. The kids being assaulted, absolutely true.

• 56:48Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, we'll agree on that one.

• 56:49David Friedberg?

  Not releasing information about the level of addiction if they had it. That's certainly bad. Should the product be legal? Number one. And if the product is legal, who's responsible for using it? You know, and where do we draw the line? And if we don't want, if we don't want people to make choice, then we shouldn't put it out there.

• 57:04Jason Calacanis?

  But if you as a corporation know it's dangerous and then you lean into that. If you know, as is the case with Facebook, that this is super addicting, super damaging to young girls. And then you lean into making it more addictive and you don't put safeguards in place. And you can prove that like RJR, like asbestos, like many of these other cover.

• 57:25David Friedberg?

  What safeguards does a whiskey company put? What safeguards does a casino put?

• 57:30Jason Calacanis?

  Hold on, you asked the question.

• 57:31David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 57:31Jason Calacanis?

  Age is one.

• 57:32David Friedberg?

  But I'm not, it's not about age.

• 57:33Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. Second, after age, which is what we're really talking about with kids. And Jonathan Haidt would agree that they shouldn't be using this until they're 16. So I think that's a perfect analogy. Age gating and then labeling. And then if they know of something that's really damaging, releasing that. So there was a whole thing about alcohol and pregnancy. And they covered up in the alcohol industry or didn't disclose exactly how damaging it was to drink alcohol on a fetus or a developing fetus. And then remember all those signs went up in bars in the 70s and 80s?

• 58:05David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 58:05Jason Calacanis?

  That was directly because of that. So labeling, information, and age gating would be the logical things to do for social media. And that's what's happened in the past. So that's the answer to your question.

• 58:14David Friedberg?

  I don't know about age gating, but I think informing parents about the risks is fine. Like, that should be a responsibility. But you know, the tort lawyers are one of the largest donors in political elections in the United States. They donate largely to Democrats in local elections and Republicans in national elections. And then they are the largest donor class to elections of judges. And it's a business. And I think we don't talk enough about the business of tort law, the business of litigation in this country. And we often ignore this question about choice. And I don't want to live in a world, J Cal, where the government and companies are telling me what to do and what not to do.

• 58:48Jason Calacanis?

  No, of course not.

• 58:48David Friedberg?

  How to live my life, et cetera.

• 58:49Jason Calacanis?

  Sax, let me jump in here. Personal freedom and personal responsibility versus, hey, corporations may be knowingly doing things.

• 59:00David Friedberg?

  Parental responsibility, J Cal.

• 59:01Jason Calacanis?

  Parental responsibility in there as well, yeah. What do you think, Sax?

• 59:04David Sacks?

  Well, look, there's no question that the trial lawyers want to turn Meta into RJ Arden, Nabisco, and the cigarette companies and try to fit their fact pattern around that. I just think that the activity is fundamentally different than smoking. I mean, smoking is manifestly harmful to you, regardless of what your age is. And the only reason we allow it is because of assumption of risk. It's a free country. I think in the case of social networking, it's much more unclear what the harms are and what the benefits are. And I think it's much more subjective and it's much more of a personal choice for adults and also for parents. Friedberg, I mean, one area where I disagree with you a little bit is you said the harms of this are immense and well-known and understood. If that's the case, then let's just ban it for under thirteen or under sixteen or whatever

• 59:49David Sacks?

  it is. But I don't think that's the case. And because it's unclear, I think it's up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their families. And at the end of the day, I think the right way to deal with this is parental empowerment. You give parents the controls to set screen time limits or to decide what apps their kids install. Now, the debate has now moved over to AI apps, and there's a lot of parents groups that want to ban kids or teenagers from being able to use AI chat apps because there was a couple of cases of self-harm. Now, my reaction to that is, look, I've got a ten-year-old, and if he starts using ChatGPT to get answers to questions, I would consider that to be

• 1:00:31David Sacks?

  a good thing. I mean, I'll keep an eye on the usage, but I want him to be an AI native. I want him to be able to do research, you know, I want him to be able to know how to use these tools. I want him to get the right skills to be successful in the 21st century. In China, they're incorporating AI into K through 12 education. Are we gonna ban it for our kids and teenagers? I think that'd be a terrible mistake. So I think when it comes to AI and AI chat apps, it has to be up to the parents because there's too much manifest good that can come out of kids learning how to use these apps. Maybe social networking is in a different category, but I gotta say, I do think that the harms have been exaggerated because the trial lawyers have an incentive. And just to give you some facts about that

• 1:01:13David Sacks?

  LA case, so just so you understand, in this LA case, they were sued by a twenty-year-old woman who claimed that she became depressed because of using social media. And she apparently suffered body image issues because of social media, and she was able to win this judgment for millions of dollars. Look, I think there's big causation problems with that case. In the case of that plaintiff, the evidence showed that she came from an abusive home, her father had abandoned her, her own mother had body-shamed her. So it was very unclear where her body image issues were coming from. I think it's possible that social media contributed to them, or it could just be. That social media was a scapegoat.

• 1:01:56David Sacks?

  I also got to say that I do think it's it's a dangerous precedent. I mean, are we going to allow plaintiffs lawyers to sue Spotify? Because you created a playlist of sad music.

• 1:02:09Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 1:02:09David Sacks?

  And that music contributed to your emotional distress. I mean, that's kind of what we're saying. You got to remember, these are free services that people have a choice whether to use them or not. And if social media is making you feel bad, if listening to the wrong playlist is making you feel bad, then stop doing it. But what's going on here, I think, is the trial lawyers are trying to create the next big tobacco. And their goal is to try and sue these companies into oblivion. And I don't think that's the right answer either.

• 1:02:37Jason Calacanis?

  The consensus, Chamath, is kids who use this two or three hours a day. This has been across many survey, many research studies is that it's massively correlated with depression and anxiety. And eating disorders, specifically in young girls, like if you get to two or three hours a day of this. So that correlation is, I think, pretty well established. You pretty famously said, hey, and you worked at Facebook, so you saw this coming. But I think at Stanford, 27, 2018 timeframe, you actually had some comments on this. We could either play the clip or you could just describe it, I guess.

• 1:03:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I said what was obvious to me then. I lost a lot of friends at Facebook when I said it, unfortunately. But essentially what I said was, I don't let my kids use it. And I don't think that this is a constructive part of a developing child's diet. I do think that Sacks is right, that I view AI chat differently. There are different guardrails that are required so that if you go down some sort of, you know, dark corner. But that's possible to understand and the product is architected in a way to create cul-de-sacs. So if you're thinking about self harm or you're thinking about these other things. Social media is very different. It's an incredibly fast twitch algorithm. And that's the optimization.

• 1:03:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And until the incentive for that optimization changes, these outcomes will continue to compound. I think the interesting thing is that the LA lawsuit. Was an individual lawsuit. The young woman, I think, was awarded three or six million dollars. Yeah. The other one, though, that they lost this week was in New Mexico, and that was for three hundred and seventy-five million dollars. And that was more around, I think, child exploitation. Yeah. The thing that I'll note is that these trial lawyers, which I'm not a fan of either, have been trying, as Sacks said and as Friedberg said, to make these folks a target because there's so much money on the line. And they've been batted back pretty successfully.

• 1:04:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But this was the first time where they were able to navigate the Section 230 protections that Facebook and Google have typically used to protect themselves, because Google was a part of the LA lawsuit. And they were able to go down the pathway of product liability language. Now, to Friedberg's point, I think he's generally right. I think it's my responsibility as a parent to take care of myself and my children. But to the extent we don't change these product liability laws that are on the books, I think the door has been opened and a map has been drawn, which is this is how you navigate around Section 230,

• 1:05:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  and you can get a decisive lawsuit in your favor against these large companies with enormous cash flows. And so I expect that this will be a death by a thousand cuts kind of scenario, where folks are just going to rally around this. I don't think it's right, but I do think that that's the rational reaction to what just happened. I mean, look, six million dollars to an individual twenty-year-old girl or three hundred and seventy-five million dollars. These are huge numbers. And the reality is that I think we've opened the floodgates. I do think there should be a better response, and I do think that parents should take a lot more responsibility. But I do hope.

• 1:06:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That these products allow us a kill switch for when our kids are under the ages of 16. Frankly, I would love a kill switch under the age of 18. And there has to be simpler ways to age validate. You know, we used to work around this thing called Kappa compliance. Kappa is bullshit. It's a nothing burger, like a six-year-old can vibe code their way around Kappa. So it doesn't do anything. Then so age verification is completely broken. It's harder to get age verified for a porn site than it is to get unage verified for Facebook.

• 1:06:32Jason Calacanis?

  Say more, Chamath, how did you get around it?

• 1:06:33David Friedberg?

  Yeah, you know, you know that. How do you know that?

• 1:06:36Jason Calacanis?

  That's just for uploading. You were uploading at the time, Chamath. This is not your OnlyFans.

• 1:06:41David Friedberg?

  Proof of proof of age.

• 1:06:44David Sacks?

  We actually deal with this in our new AI framework that the administration released last week. Because the number one issue is around online child safety, which I think, again, is mostly about social networking, but it touches on AI. And so it's kind of gotten lumped together. And I think we're, I mean, I'm referring now to the White House has said it's willing to support some form of age assurance, technology and parental controls. So look, I think there needs to be a conversation around how true it is that social networking is just a fountain of ills for young people. If that's true, then why wouldn't you just disallow it, right? But if if it's unclear, and I think it's more on the side of unclear, this is me.

• 1:07:28David Sacks?

  Uh, then it's up to the parents and what you want to do is again, have the age assurance technology and the parental controls.

• 1:07:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think.

• 1:07:34David Sacks?

  And let the parents decide.

• 1:07:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think that social media is net bad broadly speaking. But I will tell you that if my child uses it for two or three hours a day for multiple days in a row, they become retarded.

• 1:07:49Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, they act weird.

• 1:07:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so I don't know what to tell you, except I would love a kill switch until these kids turn 18 on all these products.

• 1:07:57David Sacks?

  Well, you can.

• 1:07:58Jason Calacanis?

  This has to do with dopamine, by the way.

• 1:08:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  These, what I do instead is I use Apple's family sharing. But it's hard, and I'll tell you how, why it's hard. Our schools give our kids Chromebooks and say, use these Chromebooks. Because that's the way you're going to access your LMS, your information, your content, your homework. And you know what's an integral part of that? YouTube. And then now it becomes a backdoor. So even when we take the devices, I take my devices, we lock them down. You can't bring them to your room, the whole thing.

• 1:08:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But if they need to do homework and I catch them in a little break, I'm like, what are you doing on YouTube? They're looking at shorts.

• 1:08:38Jason Calacanis?

  Of course.

• 1:08:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's what they do.

• 1:08:39Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 1:08:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so it is a whack-a-mole problem for parents.

• 1:08:44Jason Calacanis?

  I think, uh, I'll, I'll just give myself the final word here on behalf of the group. It's obviously addicting. It's obviously the industry has not policed itself, nor would they police themselves because they want to get people addicted now. So they're addicted when they're adults. The rest of the world has realized this. Australia now has 16 enforced, Malaysia 16. Other countries are right behind them. Spain, Germany, UK. And what should happen here in the United States is this should be done with the handset manufacturers. If Android and Apple showed leadership with Facebook and said, we're going to by default, when you buy a phone, you're going to have to age verify, you know, kids under a certain age, which you kind of do already when you create a family plan

• 1:09:29Jason Calacanis?

  like you did. We could solve this problem and then parents would opt in to giving their kids access to this. No good comes out of kids under 16 using social media. And Jonathan, in our interview, said you should be putting phone lockers in and our school is doing that. Other schools are doing it. It is the greatest thing ever. Kids complain and then they love it.

• 1:09:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't think it's that great. I'll tell you why. Our school does the phone condoms. I don't know what they're called, but like you put them in the bags and you, whatever.

• 1:10:00Jason Calacanis?

  The real problem is that there's enormous social pressure when you're in high school to use these products. I'll give you a specific example. Our rule is you cannot get Instagram or Tik Tok until you're 16. I would love it to be 18, but we all agreed 16 and we're able to maintain that rule. But then high school comes around and I have two kids in high school now. Oh, we need Snapchat. No, you don't.

• 1:10:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, yes, we do. No, you don't. Okay, great. We'll have no friends. Thanks a lot. We'll just sit here in our room, dark and there. And you know, there's an enormous amount of social pressure. So when you talk to the other parents, it's like, hey, guys, can we all agree that we don't need Snapchat? You just can't get uniform agreement across all parents because everybody views this problem differently. And so I had to change the rule. Now, when you get to high school, you're allowed Snapchat, but not Instagram. And you know, when you're 16, you get Instagram and that's the best we could do and TikTok and all that stuff, but.

• 1:10:51Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:10:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's an impossible task for parents.

• 1:10:54David Sacks?

  I find it indispensable to be able to do iMessage with my kids and also I like the location awareness. You can track location. You compare iMessage, those features to Snap. Is it really that different? I don't think it's that different. So you're really gonna ban, you're gonna ban Snap?

• 1:11:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I can't. My point is I had to give them Snap, but you're right. I was like, why can't you use iMessage? They're like, Dad, don't be a loser.

• 1:11:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:11:21David Sacks?

  No, I signed up for a Snap account just so I could iMessage them where they are, where they're messaging. I prefer if they were just on iMessage, but anyway. That's the reality. So you can talk about banning all these things, but again, I think you're on a slippery slope. And I gotta, I gotta just point out.

• 1:11:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I'm saying me as a parent banning. No, I'm saying me as a parent.

• 1:11:38Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, you're setting guidelines.

• 1:11:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  In my house, this is the rules. When you become a freshman, I'll give you Snap. And when you're 16, I'll give you Instagram and TikTok. Otherwise, shut the up, put your head down.

• 1:11:49Jason Calacanis?

  By the way, I also have a tip for parents. You know this issue with like kids in headphones where they want to be listening to stuff all the time and your kids walking around like zombies with headphones? I replaced their headphones with over the these brand called Shocks or something. It goes over your ear, but your ear is open so you can listen to an audiobook or music and still be able to talk. And so since we did that, it's like much less drama around the over the ear headphone issue.

• 1:12:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Man, managing teenagers are just brutal.

• 1:12:18David Sacks?

  Well, again, it sounds like you're exercising parental supervision. Because it really makes sense that later, when your kid turns 20.

• 1:12:29David Sacks?

  They could sue these companies for

• 1:12:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, to your point.

• 1:12:32Jason Calacanis?

  I just think it has to be 16.

• 1:12:33David Sacks?

  For emotional distress. That doesn't make sense.

• 1:12:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're right, because to your point, that girl said she was using it from the age of like six and 10.

• 1:12:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it's ridiculous.

• 1:12:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  One product, six, and yet, that's crazy.

• 1:12:43Jason Calacanis?

  Crazy.

• 1:12:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I agree with you, Sacks. That's crazy. Where were the parents?

• 1:12:46Jason Calacanis?

  All right. We got time for, I think, one more topic. Be amazing.

• 1:12:53Jason Calacanis?

  President Donald Trump, 47th President of the United States, announced his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. It's called PCAST. Sacks, you have now, am I correct in saying, moved from the czar of crypto and AI to now the leader of PCAST? Is that the correct way to frame this?

• 1:13:16David Sacks?

  Well, the President has appointed me to be a member of his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and to co-chair it, along with Michael Kratzios, who's the Director of OSTP. I'm still an AI advisor, but I do it on behalf of PCAST now. So you remember last year I was in SGE, we got up to 130 days. I used that time up, and the President appointed me to this new role. Allows me to continue being a technology advisor, in fact, on a wider range of issues. So before it was AI and crypto. Now it's whatever PCAST wants to study or talk about or make recommendations. I think in addition to AI, other areas that are interesting are nuclear power, quantum computing, advanced semiconductors, all these different areas.

• 1:13:59Jason Calacanis?

  Biotech.

• 1:14:00David Sacks?

  I think we've got some biotech. Thank you, Friedberg. And we have some incredible people who are now on PCAST to kind of run with this.

• 1:14:07Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I'm looking at it. Marc Andreessen, Sergey, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, David Friedberg, Jensen, Lisa Su, Mark Zuckerberg, and some other folks there that maybe not as recognizable by the audience. How were they selected? Sacks, the only criticism I've seen of this is lots of business leaders, great. Lots of technology, great, but maybe a little light on the scientists.

• 1:14:37David Sacks?

  Well, I don't know. We have people who've won a Nobel Prize for Physics on there. We're talking about people who are experts in, like I mentioned, quantum computing, fusion, nuclear, biotech, pretty much everything across the board. I would say that one difference between this PCast and previous ones is you have more doers, more builders, people who've actually created products or companies. We think that's a good thing. Why would it be a bad thing? I mean, is it a bad thing that Marc Andreessen invented the first internet browser? Or Jensen invented the GPU? If you're gonna make recommendations about advanced semiconductors, don't you want to have someone who actually invented some of the key products in the space?

• 1:15:17Jason Calacanis?

  The big question, of course, Sax is, as we've seen here with Science Corner, is how do you plan on staying awake for these meetings? If it's gonna be like, well, science is usually when you take your bio break.

• 1:15:28David Sacks?

  Well, it's science and technology.

• 1:15:31Jason Calacanis?

  Got it. So you'll be able to at least have-

• 1:15:32David Sacks?

  I'm gonna focus on the tech stuff.

• 1:15:34Jason Calacanis?

  Got it.

• 1:15:34David Sacks?

  And then we got Friedberg to focus on the science stuff.

• 1:15:36Jason Calacanis?

  Got it. So Friedberg, this is incredible. You've joined President Trump's administration now.

• 1:15:43David Friedberg?

  I will say I'm honored to be invited and appointed by the President, and I appreciate Sax and Michael Kratzios. You look back at PCast, it's kind of rooted in FDR when he formed this Council of Advisors on Science, when nuclear physics and quantum mechanics was starting to kind of reinvent what was possible in the world. We're sort of at a similar era today because arguably AI is reinventing what is possible in the world. And I think there's this kind of acute moment that we find ourselves in, in this extraordinary race against China. I'll give you a statistic. Ten years ago, China published 50% of the number of scientific research papers in peer-reviewed journals as the United States. Last year, they published 50% more than the United States.

• 1:16:25David Friedberg?

  This is across all disciplines and domains, including physics, material science, chemistry, biochemistry, broad life sciences. There's this moment that we're in right now where both, the world is being reinvented by AI, but there's this extraordinary race with China, not just in fundamental research and discovery, but in the industrialization of new discoveries and new technologies. You could feel it in DC this week. I was at the Hill and Valley Forum. But literally everyone in Silicon Valley, everyone in DC is like-

• 1:16:54David Friedberg?

  Absolutely honed and focused in on what is going on in China. It used to be in biotechnology, for example, that China was kind of a copycat and a me too, or they were really good, for example, in manufacturing. But it is now the case that in many subdomains, China is becoming the scientific leader in biotechnology and in life sciences. And that is a scary thought because ultimately China could end up engulfing the entire pharmaceutical industry and basically becoming the leader in things like medicine, but most importantly, foundational things like AI. So I just want to defend and speak for a moment about the choice about putting what I would say are like industrial science and technology leaders on this commission because this is a moment where there's an industrial race, not just a discovery race underway.

• 1:17:39David Friedberg?

  And that's why this moment is so critical. Anyway, I'm very appreciative to have an opportunity to serve and thankful to David for his leadership.

• 1:17:48Jason Calacanis?

  In related news, Chamath will be joining the President's Advisory Council on bomb pots and wagering. He'll be joining that. And when I saw this, I saw PC and I was like, oh, is it podcasting? I'm in. Finally, I've been invited to the President's Council on Podcasting. So big, big news coming. I don't want to tip anybody's cards.

• 1:18:08David Sacks?

  We'll let you know when that happens.

• 1:18:09Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, absolutely. President's Council on Podcasting emerges. Me and Lex Friedman will make our way to Washington DC.

• 1:18:18David Sacks?

  I want to thank the President as well, and it's a great honor to be named to co-chair this. It is like Friedberg was saying, this is a fairly august body that goes back a long time. I think the modern incarnation was created in 1990 by George Herbert Walker Bush. So this has been around for over 30 years. In its current formulation, I think we have a slightly different take on it, which is we're going to have these builders and doers on there. Like Friedberg said, we got some catching up to do on our industrial policy. We have named 15 people. There's still nine more slots. We can have up to 24. So I think it's possible that at some point there'll be a second round and if we're missing some expertise, they can be filled in. Obviously, that's up to the President. He can decide later who else might join this.

• 1:19:02Jason Calacanis?

  All right, everybody. It's another amazing episode, the number one podcast in the world, the All In Podcast. Bye bye. Love you, boys. Bye bye.

• 1:19:19Speaker 04

  And instead, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Wes. I'm the queen of Kinoah.

• 1:19:32Speaker 04

  Besties are gone.

• 1:19:35Speaker 04

  That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway.

• 1:19:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just... It's like this sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

• 1:19:50Speaker 04

  Wet your... Be... Wet your... Wet your feet. Be... What? We need to get merch. Besties are gone.