Bernie Sanders: Stop All AI, China's EUV Breakthrough, Inflation Down, Golden Age in 2026?

(0:00) Bestie intros! (0:19) Bernie Sanders calls for AI datacenter moratorium, how to solve the negative perception of AI (17:15) Anti-AI astroturfing: Is the AI sentiment manufactured by special interests? (32:39) Economy: Unemployment, jobs, inflation, are we primed for a "Golden Age" or not? (51:44) Dog Corner! (59:56) China's major AI breakthrough: lithography, impact on the AI race? (1:19:43) Are the rest of the Besties moving to Texas? 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://x.com/SenSanders/status/2001057004370948131 https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/2001733168819319167 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2001726037848478000 https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/2001320789279203694 https://andymasley.substack.com/p/i-cant-find-any-instances-of-data https://www.semafor.com/article/12/07/2025/ai-critics-funded-ai-coverage-at-top-newsrooms https://connecticuthistory.org/ida-tarbell-the-woman-who-took-on-standard-oil/ https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1987238502124409321 https://www.npr.org/2025/12/16/nx-s1-5645023/jobs-employment-labor-market https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/18/cpi-inflation-breakdown.html https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/how-china-built-its-manhattan-project-rival-west-ai-chips-2025-12-17/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/trump-administration-pressed-dutch-hard-to-cancel-china-chip-equipment-sale-so-idUSKBN1Z50H4/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-025-01923-w

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 your favorite podcast, the number one podcast, in fact, in the entire universe, the all-in podcast with your besties. We're all here. It's the original quartet. Everybody loves when the core four are here and we have a donkey for you today. Guys, we got to start out with Bernie Sanders. I know this is becoming a bit repetitive, but AI is the topic. We reached a new level of retardation this week that we cannot avoid. Bernie Sanders has a major D cell pitch, a moratorium on new AI data centers. Here's his argument. Number one, the billionaires are pushing AI because

• 0:42Jason Calacanis?

  they want more money and power. Number two, it's going to be massive unemployment. And he cites Skates, Dario, Elon, saying that AI would replace most jobs. Number three, he has an interesting point, actually. AI is harmful to kids because it decreases social interaction. Actually, we kind of agree with that one, I think, across the board. But here's his pitch, Sax. His pitch is, you want your kids using these chatbots?

• 1:09David Sacks?

  No, I've talked to my kids about it. And we can get into it, but I've talked to them about it. Look, if you actually look at the data, if you look at what kids are doing, it's so much more interactive and engaging for them to talk to their friends on Snap or to watch videos on TikTok. Those things are super engaging, whereas doing research on an AI chatbot is just, it's way less engaging. And you see this in the data. So I'm not saying there's not an issue there. You want to pay attention to the way that these technologies are shaping the minds of young kids. But I think if people get a little bit confused, what they're really talking about is social media and then they attribute all the ills of social media over to these new AI chat apps. And they are a little different. You know, when I talk, when I ask my kids, like,

• 1:55David Sacks?

  How much you use these things? Are they addictive? They said, no, they're more just really useful. It's like Google.

• 2:01Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, there's two.

• 2:03David Sacks?

  I couldn't do school without it.

• 2:05Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, there's two pieces here. One, using AI to be smarter and to learn stuff and ask questions. Absolutely fantastic, phenomenal. I think we'll all agree on that. There is, and I don't know if this is actually what he was referencing, but there's character AI in a, in a long tail of spicy chats where people, we talked about getting one-shotted and these parasocial relationships. That's I think what he's referring to, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. But let's get into it here. His pitch is that we need to slow down so that, quote, "democracy can catch up and that Congress should put a moratorium on new data centers." That's his solution. He got roasted, obviously, on social media for this.

• 2:47Jason Calacanis?

  It's the most absurd, I think, solution to, you know, what are valid concerns? Friend of the pod, Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, he, I guess, supported a bit. And then he replied to me and says, "His concerns are not as acute and that he just wants to make sure we use renewable energy," which I guess is, you know, a fine position to have. Polymarket put up a little market here. AI data center moratorium passed before 2027. Yeah, we'll see if that comes true or not. But hey, Sax, you are our SGE. Sax, or SGE, this is your time to shine. You have framed the AI debate as we can't lose to China.

• 3:30Jason Calacanis?

  Bernie framed it as not letting the billionaire class get more power and money by eliminating American jobs. And last week on this very program, Tucker framed it as, "What are Americans going to get out of this?" Right? That, that was the framing, you know, as of December of 2025. So here's your chance, Sax. Why should Americans, who have some concerns about losing their jobs, care about beating China? Why should they care about that, Sax?

• 3:56David Sacks?

  Why should they care about beating China? Because AI is a profound technology. It's going to have huge economic and national security implications. And the thing that Bernie gets wrong is that he can't stop the progress. I mean, he can't stop China from making progress. We can stop progress in the US, but it's not going to stop China from advancing these technologies. A lot of this is just math. And just because we stopped doesn't mean China's going to stop. So this would be the biggest own goal ever. If we took our leadership in the AI race and just handed it to China. But look, I appreciate Bernie's honesty in a way because he is actually telling the truth about what he wants. And I remember just a week ago, when President Trump signed an executive order to advance a national AI framework,

• 4:42David Sacks?

  a lot of critics and a lot of Democrats were saying this was a violation of states' rights, and we need to support the states in regulating AI. And here Bernie is acknowledging that this is not about states' rights because he's saying that there needs to be a moratorium on new data centers, even if the states want them. So he doesn't support states' rights either. He just wants all the progress to stop. And I think this is really the truth of the matter is that all this talk about states' rights or affordability, it's all a red herring. And what's really going on is there's a large and growing contingent of people who just want all the progress to stop. But again, we can't stop China from making progress. So all they would be doing is seeding leadership of this AI race to China. What people like Bernie really want is they want the US to become like Europe.

• 5:28David Sacks?

  You know, Europe has half the share of global GDP that they had 30 years ago. And that's because of their hostility towards innovation and technological progress. And that's kind of where Bernie wants us to be is he wants us to go down the path of Europe. And the reason he says is because, God forbid, someone gets rich. Well, look, capitalism sometimes results in the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism always results in the equal distribution of poverty and misery. And if the US stops developing AI, if we hand this leadership to other countries, it'll make the United States poorer. It'll make the American people poorer. And it will seed our leadership globally. We will not be the permanent power in the world anymore.

• 6:13Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 6:14David Sacks?

  So I'll stop there.

• 6:15Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, it's great. Thank you, SGE, David Sacks.

• 6:20Jason Calacanis?

  There seems to be a couple of conversations, unfortunately weren't here last week, but we had a really nice visit from our pal Tucker, and we talked about this. He seemed to think there was a bit of a communication problem with selling to the public the value of these technologies. Do you agree with that? And what do you think's going on here in terms of the cross conversations? One group wants to decel, has some concerns, environmental, you know, job displacement, etc. And then, is there an issue where the China, beating China doesn't resonate with the American populace? You've been harping on about the rise of socialism for four plus years on this very podcast. So, from where you sit, what's the actual disconnect in these multiple conversations that are going on concurrently?

• 7:04Jason Calacanis?

  And seemingly coming to a head here at the end of 2025?

• 7:07David Friedberg?

  Well, if you ask any of the politicians that are making these proclamations about the quote "tech barons" and try and actually talk to them about what is the AI technology delivering, what is it not delivering, you kind of typically hit a wall pretty quickly. It's very hard for folks to articulate what is actually happening. There's a tremendous amount of capital being put at risk against infrastructure to build out the capacity for many companies, the entire economy, the entire industry to deliver AI tools. There isn't an aggregation at this stage of value creation, with the exception of Nvidia, which has really got this $3 trillion market cap creation that's happened in the last couple of years. Peter Thiel said this best. He's like, "Look at all the money that's going into AI. There's

• 7:51David Friedberg?

  really only one company that's making any money, and that's Nvidia." Like, at this point, the jury's still out. We don't even know what AI is. It's sort of like when the internet was happening, you know, everyone thought these fiber optic switch companies were going to make all the money. Turns out that was wrong. It was the end applications that made all the money. And they competed in many different markets, from Google to Amazon to Uber. You can go down the list of all the beneficiaries of the core infrastructure technology of the internet that was built out. So what is really going on? Well, AI is the new lightning rod for fear and for divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control, which is where these politicians are trying to drive the populace and the voting conditions in the United States. And that's what's going on right now. There's

• 8:34David Friedberg?

  a lot of fear about, "Oh, putting this data center in my town is going to do X or Y or Z," with no real conversation about the truth of that matter. There's a lot of fear about wealth creation being aggregated in the hand of a few, when, as we saw with the internet, it benefited the many. And that fear mongering is a very similar tactic that we've seen in the prior generations, where policies were misstated, fear was used and then voting control allowed folks to come to power that were looking for power. So I think it's just the lightning rod at the moment.

• 9:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, Chumap, what's your take on this big picture of what's going on here? I think it's important to understand that politicians have an incredible sense of self-preservation. So the question is, why would Bernie Sanders think he would not look totally foolish in putting that video out? And the reason it went viral is not because it sounded so crazy, it was that to some faction and percentage of people, it sounded rational and reasonable. And the problem that highlights is that we have a huge perception issue in AI. We have a handful of companies, all the PR that you see from those handful of companies is a bunch of circular deal making, a bunch of capital that flows from

• 9:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  one to the other. It causes these stocks to go up, of which a small percentage of people benefit. And at the tail end of it, it's accompanied by a completely different set of articles that everybody also reads about this sort of Damocles that's about to fall on their head, whether it's electricity prices, or whether it's their jobs, or whether it's the jobs of their children, or the quality of their education. So we have a big perception problem. So the question at hand is, how do we fix it? How do we get back to the place where a video talking about stopping all progress would seem as laughable as it should

• 10:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  be? And I think you can go back to the Gilded Age and you can ask the question, how did the industrialist leaders of that era respond through that 1880 to 1920 age of industrialization? When you had all of this technological upheaval accompanied by a handful of people with incredible success? Right? Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller, Henry Ford. What did they do? And I think the lesson we can borrow from them is we now need to be on the forward foot as an industry. Enough of the stupid haircuts, dumb watches, ugly clothes, ostentatious displays of wealth. We've all done it. I've been guilty of it. It has to stop. Absolutely stop.

• 11:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And instead, we need to start to use a percentage of the balance sheets of these companies in order to benefit as many Americans as possible. That is the absolute minimum. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries.

• 11:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The idea was, as he built the railroads, you're going to scale GDP. You're going to scale education and knowledge. Those libraries are artifacts that allowed people to feel a dividend from that industrial revolution. John D Rockefeller took all of his wealth and invested in institutions and universities. Henry Ford specifically focused on wages. We need to self-organize better and we need to be more on the forward foot. We need to start doing things that are practically measurable by tens of millions of American citizens. And it starts to beat back the perception problem that we have. Because Sax pointed out last week, the data does not support the misperception. But the problem is, and Sax and I were talking about this last week,

• 12:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  the misperception is gaining steam. And so I think we need to use these tools that we have to provide some more practical benefits that every man, woman, and child can feel. Otherwise, this thing is going to build and you'll see crazier and crazier versions of this Bernie Sanders video.

• 12:31Jason Calacanis?

  All right. I think it's well said. And you know, as I said last week, I think beating China does not matter to the average American. It's below their line, Chamath, I think, in many ways. What they care about is jobs. They care about their kids getting jobs. And yeah, they care about costs. They care about inflation. They care about energy costs going up. Our industry has done a terrible job of explaining how this benefits the average American. And they're seeing all these headlines about, as you mentioned, all the cross-deal booking and all these stocks going up. Half the country doesn't own stocks, so they're not participating in it. And they're not blind to seeing self-driving cars or seeing their kids having a hard time getting a job. And they're hearing everybody talk about job displacement.

• 13:16Jason Calacanis?

  And that's a valid concern. People are scared, and our industry is scaring them, I think, by not meeting where they are. And then beating China respectfully is important. Sacks, super important. I can intellectually agree with you on that. But if you lose your jobs and your kids can't get a job, that's existential, yes. It's not, my child needs a job next year. They're graduating from school with $100,000 in debt and my energy bill's going up and my grocery bills are going up and they haven't come down. That's what Americans are experiencing. And yeah, maybe giving, I think you also made an interesting point there too about the libraries.

• 13:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The war with China is existential. Because if we can keep it on the battlefield of AI and intellectual and economic prowess, we have a very good chance of winning. If it devolves and all of a sudden it becomes a different kind of battle, that's bad for everybody, especially our children and our children's children. So we need to win the current game on the field. But in order to do that, we need to change these misperceptions. We need to start showing tactical artifacts that show that this is a dividend that can benefit everybody. And we need to start now. I'm just putting it out there. We have so much cash on the balance sheets of these companies. Wall Street values it at zero. If you look at the enterprise value of any of these companies and you do a sum of the parts,

• 14:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  nobody cares about that cash. So we need to start using that cash more effectively.

• 14:43Jason Calacanis?

  What's the equivalent of the library metaphor here for you, Jamath? Do you have any ideas?

• 14:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm not going to front-run.

• 14:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What's being worked on, except to say that the leaders of these companies have gotten the message. They are working on a whole host of solutions. And again, we're fighting misperception, which is a complicated battle, but it's winnable. And I think you're going to start to see stuff in the new year.

• 15:07Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I would say education is at the top of that list. Sax, your thoughts here as we wrap on this first topic?

• 15:12David Sacks?

  I'm not sure whether to address the particular hoaxes or the fact that there are, there's a larger effort here to try and discredit AI and get AI development to stop entirely. Let's talk about some of these particular hoaxes. So on the job loss claim, I feel like I do this every week now, but there's a new study from Vanguard where they analyze job growth and wage growth in occupations that are highly exposed to AI automation versus all occupations. And they find that both job growth and wage growth is higher, not lower in the occupations that are exposed to AI. So if you look at job growth

• 15:57David Sacks?

  in occupations exposed to AI, it's 1.7% compared to 0.8% for other. For wage growth, it's 3.8% versus 0.7% for other. So what you see here is something, maybe it's counterintuitive, but it makes sense to me, which is as you make workers more productive, the value of their labor increases, not decreases, and they end up getting paid more and you want to hire more of them. So this is a huge narrative violation. Again, this is coming from Vanguard. And it's showing that AI productivity is good for workers. This follows on the heels of that study from Yale Budget Lab, which I talked about in a previous show, that it said there's no discernible disruption to the job market

• 16:42David Sacks?

  based on 33 months of data after the launch of ChatGPT. Now, I understand that you can make predictions as to the future that this state's going to change, that there will be AI job loss, but what I'm saying is that if you look at the data so far, there is no AI job loss, quite the opposite. It's job growth and job gains. By the way, we have a 2% tailwind to GDP growth right now. That's coming from this AI boom, this capex boom that's happening. And so This is, I think, a very good thing for the US economy. Now, why do people want to sabotage it? There's a really interesting article on Semaphore recently that described how AI critics

• 17:22David Sacks?

  were funding journalism fellowships at major publications like NBC News, Bloomberg, Time, The Verge, LA Times, which by the way, I mean, I track these things, they're relentlessly negative about AI. These fellowships were funded by Future of Life Institute, which is a doomer group that thinks that AI is going to become sentient and replace humans. And they were funded by a donation by Vitalik Buterin from Ethereum. It's an interesting story, actually. He donated his dog coins to Future of Life. They ended up being worth $600 million.

• 18:02Jason Calacanis?

  Doge coins?

• 18:03David Sacks?

  Doge. And then you remember how there was like those other dog coins?

• 18:08Jason Calacanis?

  Shiba Inu.

• 18:09David Sacks?

  Shiba Inu.

• 18:10Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, he had a collection of dog coins.

• 18:11David Sacks?

  He had a collection of dog coins. Apparently, people like airdropped them to him as like a promotional thing.

• 18:16Jason Calacanis?

  Got it.

• 18:17David Sacks?

  I don't think he wanted them, so he's like, how do I get rid of them? So he donates them to Future of Life, and they end up being worth $600 million. So by this

• 18:24Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, my God.

• 18:25David Sacks?

  Almost like this accident, this doomer think tank ends up with a $600 million war chest. And they've been funding these journalism fellowships. They've been funding grants for academics to study AI. Obviously, that's going to end up being very negative. And they are funding a lot of these NIMBY organizations that are opposing data centers because their goal is just to get to stop. That's their goal. They just want the development to stop. And you can't, I don't think, underestimate how much of an impact this has had on the public discourse. But if you look at their actual claims, like, for example, the water use claims, it's a total hoax. I mean, these AI data sources do not use a lot of water.

• 19:05Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, that was one of the things I wanted to get into because Yeah, compared to a golf course, they're not using that much or making walnuts and, you know, almonds in central California. So I think it is worth maybe just unpacking.

• 19:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, they're throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Look, you have to remember, who was, who was Ida Tarbell? Because it's quite interesting in the context of this. Ida Tarbell was this American writer, again, in the Gilded Age. She was part of the Muck Wreckers, which was a group of journalists that were doing investigative research around the abuses of the Industrial Revolution, labor abuses and the like. And she took on Sandoval, exactly. If you look at that example, I'm sure that the people in this current generation who have a Tarbell Fellowship, what they're living out is this desire to tell a story about exploitation and wrong and misdoing. The problem is that these things don't factually hold together. But unfortunately, it adds to the perception problem that we

• 20:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  have. And that has been growing. As Sacks said, like, so many of these things have been debunked, but it's playing whack-a-mole, Jason, because they'll throw the water thing out, it'll get debunked. Next week, we'll probably something about liquid cooling and all the PFAS and forever chemicals. We'll have to debunk that. Then we'll go to like air cooling and how that's a problem. Then we'll go to something else. Eventually, it'll be the upper land grouse. But they're not going to stop.

• 20:27Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks, how do you, do you have a plan to reframe this to the American public? You're explaining how these bad things are happening and all the evil forces at work behind the scene.

• 20:37David Sacks?

  Well, look, it's not evil forces, but I don't think people understand the extent to which the discourse has been impacted by a few anti-AI tech billionaires.

• 20:46Jason Calacanis?

  You brought it up every week and on your text.

• 20:48David Sacks?

  I brought it up, hold on, I brought it up on this show and I tweeted about it way back in November. And I linked to a writer named Nirat Weisblatt, who has analyzed this whole Doomer industrial complex. And she has shown that there are hundreds of these front organizations, and they're all really just funded by a few big tech billionaires. It's Dustin Moskowitz, Yann Taulan, and Vitalik Buterin. Well, when I first described this, people thought that this sounds kind of crazy, like conspiracy theory. And then sure enough, Semaphore comes out with the article. Explaining that all these journalism jobs are being funded by Future of Life, which was the big donation by Vitalik Buterin. So my point is just, you can't underestimate the extent to which a few billionaires who've

• 21:30David Sacks?

  donated over a billion dollars to this cause have distorted the public debate. And you really see this actually in the relative popularity of AI in the United States versus China. So there was recently a poll on, they call it AI optimism, where they asked people, do you believe that the benefits of AI will outweigh the harms? Eighty-three percent of people in China believe the benefits will outweigh the harms, they're AI optimistic. In the US, it's only thirty-nine percent. So again, the discourse has really been affected by a few of these institutions.

• 22:04Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, so let's say, let's say that's all true.

• 22:06David Sacks?

  Yeah.

• 22:06Jason Calacanis?

  My question to you is, what's your plan to turn this around and explain to the American people why they should be optimistic about this? What's your plan, David?

• 22:16David Sacks?

  Well, look, I mean, you're right that we have to flip the narrative around. And I do think that the tech companies have done a really bad job explaining the benefits. We talked about this with Tucker. I think he brought up some really good points. And you're right, like, the AI companies lean way too much into the whole job loss narrative as, as a way to explain their value prop. And I think it's just either what Chamath has said, which is about their next fundraising round, or it's a form of laziness, because it's easier to describe job loss or job replacement than it is productivity, right? Like, multi-factor productivity is a difficult concept to explain. So I do think that they've played into this narrative. But I think that what we have to do here is just debunk these narratives. Again, no evidence of job loss yet, no evidence of the water problems.

• 23:00David Sacks?

  I think the electricity issues with data centers are addressable. You have to let the AI companies build their own power. They don't have to connect to the grid. In fact, that's what President Trump has called for, for the last six months, is to let the AI companies build their own power, so they're not drawing on the grid. So that problem is easily addressed as well. Talk about the affordability problem. But you're right, we have to get the message out, how this technology will benefit Americans. And the bottom line is, look, I've always said I'm a techno-realist, not a techno-accelerationist. Because at the end of the day, we don't have a choice. I mean, China's going to develop the technology if we don't.

• 23:34Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 23:34David Sacks?

  So we don't really have a choice.

• 23:36Jason Calacanis?

  I, you know, as I said last week, I think the three most pressing issues, Chamath, education. Housing and healthcare. And our industry is in a unique position to use AI to impact all three of those. So why don't we, as an industry, collectively explain all the great things going on there? I gave a shout out to Daniel Ek, Pre-Novo, Pre-Novo, rather. All these great companies analyzing our blood. There's so much going on in healthcare that could massively lower the cost, make people's lives better. Obviously, in construction, you could have incredible advances, and certainly in education. But we haven't explained those three things. What's your point? Is there anything you can think of to add to that list?

• 24:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  We have to understand, the president and Saks, they're responsible for shepherding the GDP of America. And as Saks said, half of American GDP over the next few years is forecasted to come from all of the capital that goes in to build out our capabilities in AI. We need this to happen. There's the existential reason why, but there's also a basic economic reason why. So Jason, the social license comes when off to the side, the private companies start to take this perception problem more seriously. So to your point, are there things that they can do around housing? Yes. And again, not to front run, they're actively working on something that I think could be transformational. Separately, could they do something on healthcare?

• 24:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  TBD, but we should look at it. Can you do something in education? TBD, but we should look at it. But the point is, if you can have the same companies that are on the forward foot, building this revolution for us, recognize that we need to bring some more folks along, take some of their balance sheet capital and invest it to create the social license to operate, we will flip this perception on its head.

• 25:23Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I think it's well said. And you know, there was a really interesting, I don't know, you guys must remember this, the AT&T commercials, you will? Do you remember those?

• 25:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  By the way, sorry, that's another great example, Jason. AT&T, at the turn of the century, what did they do? They took their capital and they created Bell Labs. What did Bell Labs do? Bell Labs drove all of modern information theory. It was the precursor to the internet. They did so much fundamental research. I want to be clear, I don't think that this is a five alarm fire. This is very fixable right now. And the litmus test, quite honestly, is in three, four, five, six months, Jason, when you see the trickle of progress, if we can get organized. Does your perception change? And does the language that you use and the tone that you've used over these last six months?

• 26:06Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, you're blaming me?

• 26:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, I'm actually thinking that you've actually been quite a good early warning system for what a certain percentage of Americans think.

• 26:14Jason Calacanis?

  Yes, I predicted it perfectly, yes.

• 26:17Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's been extremely useful. But now we gotta act on it and you have to change your mind.

• 26:22Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, no, no, my, my mind has been very crystal clear. I won't let you, you know, tell me what my opinion is. My opinion has been job displacement's coming.

• 26:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Jason, let me be clear, we have to earn you changing your mind publicly on this show. If we do that, we're back in a good place.

• 26:36Jason Calacanis?

  Uh, yeah, no, I think that you're saying that in a very condescending way. I have brought up, I have brought up, okay, unintentionally.

• 26:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, wait, here, let me try to say it again, sorry, let me try this again. We have.

• 26:45Jason Calacanis?

  You're saying as if I'm misguided.

• 26:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no, you have a perception.

• 26:49Jason Calacanis?

  Which is, what do you think my perception is?

• 26:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That on the balance, it's a coin flip about whether AI is going to be all good for all people or very good for a small subset of people. That's what I would roughly summarize.

• 27:02Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, I'd say that's, I would say that's accurate. Job displacement is, I have concerns about job displacement.

• 27:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So let me finish. So if we can execute this plan, again, meaning marry all the stuff we're doing on the forward foot within investing, with some of the stuff that we also need to do to bring a broader swath of the American population along.

• 27:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 27:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You will have a different perception if we are successful. And what I'm saying is you've had this one perception and our goal would be to shift you and people like you.

• 27:32Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, I, I, I take it. I think it's completely fair, yeah. I have been trying to bring up that as an industry, we have not recognized people's valid concerns about job displacement. That's all I've brought up on this program. I'm not saying I think it's going to be cataclysmic or we can't handle it. But I think if we constantly talk. About, hey, winning the AI race in China, that's abstract for people. And if we deny the fact that robo taxis and human robotics are coming, and intelligent people like Elon or other leaders are saying, yeah, we're planning on replacing those jobs. We're doing a terrible job communicating this. And I do think part of this is communication and part of it is, hey, these are valid concerns. So I think great resolution. Yeah, sure. I'll be the litmus test.

• 28:16David Sacks?

  Do you guys know what the Mott and Bailey fallacy is?

• 28:20Jason Calacanis?

  No, explain it to the audience. I mean, I think I've heard of it, but.

• 28:22David Sacks?

  The Mott and Bailey Castle is an early medieval fortification where there's like a very protected area, the keep or the Mott. And then the Bailey is kind of this looser area that's hard to defend, right? So what happens is if they need to retreat, they'll go into the Mott. Okay.

• 28:40Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. Lord of the Rings. Right.

• 28:42David Sacks?

  So this has become known as a debating trick or fallacy where people will make a really outrageous claim, which is they'll, they'll basically run to the Bailey. And then when you prove that it's false, they'll run back into the Mott and say something very unobjectionable. So in the context of like the AI job loss fallacy, the Bailey is people will say, this is causing massive job loss, massive disruption. It's already here. You can see it. And then when I point out, well, actually, if you look at the Yale Budget Lab study, or you look now at the Vanguard study, there is no job loss. Then they'll retreat into the Mott and they'll say, no, no, no, I'm talking about what's going to happen in the future, which is a position that's fundamentally irrefutable.

• 29:27David Sacks?

  And then when I point that out, well, wait, you just totally changed what you're saying. You're like, no, no, no, I was only talking about the future. And then as soon as we sort of seem to have agreement, then the people in the Mott will race out to the Bailey and basically saying, well, look at what's happening with Uber drivers or what have you. So there is this Mott and Bailey thing happening all the time on this job loss question. And I just want people to be straight about or honest about it, which is, look, if your claim is that this will cause job loss in the future, it's true. I can't refute that because none of us can prove what's going to happen in the future. But be honest about what's happening today. And in the first three years after the launch of AI chatbots, there's been no discernible disruption to the labor market and the early studies and data are showing.

• 30:12David Sacks?

  Wage increases and actually job increases. And there's definitely job increases in blue collars because of the construction boom.

• 30:20Jason Calacanis?

  This has been our first debate club corner. Every week, we're going to teach you how to debate better here. No, it's, you know, I, I appreciate that. I have really tried to say here, like, I'm not a doomerist at all. You know, the statistics I look at, you know, I talked to Dara. I have actually sincerely, that's why I don't use, I use displacement. You know, I really use refined language. I do, I do. And when I talked to Dara, he told me in areas where robo taxis like Waymo are occurring, what they did specifically to deal with this issue was they stopped trying to hire drivers in Cal, in Los Angeles and in San Francisco, because there are so many Waymos, they don't want them to have a bad experience.

• 31:02Jason Calacanis?

  So, you know, you, wherever in the castle we're talking about this, I, I don't have a, a horse in this race. I'm not part of this cabal of, you know, Destin, Moskowitz's people. I just know from talking to Uber and Waymo and these other companies and, you know, other companies that are building software, where they're trying to eliminate jobs. And so I'm just bringing that up as a really interesting example. Uber and Waymo, Elon with Tesla, they are actually making plans right now to deal with this displacement of drivers. And they're coming up with new products and services for those drivers. So one of the things they're doing is data labeling at Uber. They, they bought a data labeling company and they're taking the drivers and saying, hey, you want to do some data labeling over here and actually creating AI jobs for them?

• 31:47Jason Calacanis?

  So this is, you know, uh, something that the whole industry is working on.

• 31:51David Sacks?

  Look, there's going to be a spectrum, right? Some jobs are going to change. Some jobs will be eliminated. The question is with respect to job eliminations, will that be more than offset by the net new job creations? If you're looking at things like Uber drivers and we go to full self-driving. Then obviously, there's going to be some category of job loss there. So I'm not claiming that there's not going to be any elimination of certain types of jobs. But I believe that on the whole, what we're seeing is that when you improve the productivity of workers, their wages go up and there's more demand for their labor, not less. That's what the data is showing so far. And I just don't think you get that from the media right now because they are promoting this Duma narrative and a lot of that is astroturfed by these enormously deep-pocketed

• 32:34David Sacks?

  organizations that have been funded by a few effective altruists.

• 32:38Jason Calacanis?

  All right. Topic number two, economic numbers are out. It's a mixed bag. Unemployment rate is up and government payrolls are down. Inflation, somewhere in between. Let's get into the numbers here, fun with numbers. Unemployment rate rose to 4.6% from 4.4% in September and 4% in January of 2025 when President Trump took over. U.S. economy added 64,000 jobs in new jobs in November. October saw about 104,000 job losses, but 162,000 of those job losses came from the federal government. You remember the Doge buybacks. Friend of the pod, Elon Musk, was involved in. Those all took effect at the end of September.

• 33:21Jason Calacanis?

  So there was a little bit of a balloon payment that occurred. An analyst from Moody's says, quote, "It's a frozen job market. There's not much hiring. There's not much firing happen." That tracks with what I'm seeing on the ground. Meanwhile, inflation came in better than expected at 2.7%, beating the 3.1% expectation, but still far away from the 2% target for the Fed. Trump gave an 18-minute, very loud, emphatic address to the nation last night. And it was not that we're invading Venezuela. It was mostly him talking about his accomplishments. In terms of prices and affordability...

• 34:04Jason Calacanis?

  And a little bit of admonishing Biden. Here's a 20 second clip.

• 34:09Speaker 04

  The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before. I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast.

• 34:24Jason Calacanis?

  Sacks, your thoughts on the economic data?

• 34:27David Sacks?

  Well, you're painting it as you're painting the economic data as mixed. I don't know how you have a economic report that's better than what we just had today. So first of all, we saw that CPI came in at 2.7%, like you said, but the expectations were 3.1%. That's why the market is rallying today in a big way. Core inflation's down to 2.6%. These are significant beats and this puts core CPI inflation in the US at its lowest level since March of 2021. So since the whole COVID thing. And if you listen to Kevin Hassett, he said that over the past three months, core inflation's been running at 1.6%. So the trend line is going down even further. So it looks to me like inflation's rolling over and that's just about a solved problem, which is really good news for what it implies

• 35:12David Sacks?

  for interest rates because it implies that interest rates are coming down. And that's going to bring down things like mortgage costs and the costs of financing a car payment and things like that. Now, you talk about unemployment. I think the unemployment news is very, very good. So if you look at the data from September to November, the overall employment is down 41,000. But why was that? Private employment was up 121,000, but government employment in the last two months has declined by 162,000. So this is what the media was focused on is they're trying to claim that unemployment was up, but actually it's just that the government jobs decreased. Why did the government jobs decrease? Well, you remember that when Doge went in and made their cuts at the beginning of the year, they offered

• 35:56David Sacks?

  people a buyout as of October 1st. Now, some people took the buyout right away, but a lot more waited until the last possible day, which was October 1st. And that's why you saw this big spike in October unemployment. But those are government jobs that are being cut and more. Moreover, there are people who voluntarily wanted to take the buyout and they took that deal. So again, I think the employment picture is looking actually quite good. And if you believe what we believe, you don't want an excessive number of government jobs. And President Trump has presided over, I think, the first decrease in the federal workforce in decades. We've seen a 10.7% decrease in federal workers in 2025.

• 36:39David Sacks?

  Basically, the number's gone from 2.4 million to 2.15 million. I know that'll make Friedberg very happy. But look, what we had during the Biden years is we had 9% inflation. We had a very weak economy. We did have a recession. It was that two-quarter shallow recession. And the media even tried to start redefining what a recession was to avoid those headlines. But what the Biden administration did in response to that is they went hog wild with government hiring. And what we're seeing now is inflation is now coming back down. And we're seeing the number of government workers come down to a more reasonable level. And the private economy is making up for it. We still have a relatively historically low unemployment rate. So those numbers look good.

• 37:24David Sacks?

  Then you look at the deficit. We've reduced the deficit year over year by 600 billion. That will help bring interest rates down. And then on prices, you got the lowest gas prices in five years below $3 nationally. And then finally, on wages, real wages are up by over $1,000 on average. And it's $1,300 for factory workers, $1,800 for construction workers. And again, that's a big change from the Biden years where you saw that in real terms, wages went down by about $3,000 on average per worker. So, look, I mean, it seems to me like we're on the cusp of a golden age here. I don't see how the numbers could really be better.

• 38:06David Sacks?

  And then on top of it, again, you've got this AI tailwind, which I think is a huge positive, not a negative, which is adding roughly 2% GDP growth every year because of huge capex investment with so far no job loss associated with that. So I would just say sit back and enjoy this. I think we're headed for a gangbusters 2026. Rates are coming down. Inflation's coming down and you're also getting tax cuts going into effect next year because of the big beautiful bill. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social security, plus the standard deductions being beefed up. So people haven't even felt the benefit of those tax cuts that's coming in in April. I don't see how things could be much better.

• 38:47Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. Friedberg, any thoughts here on the data as it's come in? Or Chama? I'll go to either one of you.

• 38:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Directionally, I think it's really positive. You want to see

• 38:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

  private sector jobs growing and the shrinkage of government sector jobs has profound impacts, not just on the budget, but it starts to create obvious air pockets where you get a little bit more rational regulation. You can deregulate in the appropriate places. You can shift the burden and the responsibility to private industry. So it's more than just what's in the numbers that I think is positive. I've told you this story before, Jason, to do some of the things that I've wanted to do. I'll give you an example. When we started a battery business five years ago, when we filed with the DOE, the Department of Energy, these are 700-page reports. You spend millions of dollars and you hire teams of 50 and 100 people. And what are

• 39:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  we trying to do? We're trying to build a battery business in the United States so that we can delever from the Chinese. To the extent that we could do that a little bit simpler and a little bit easier because there's fewer folks. And so the burden goes to state and local regulators, which we all already have to deal with. These are just generally good things for productivity. They're generally good things for GDP. It allows us to invest more aggressively in the things that help America. So it's trending in the right direction. By the way, Saks didn't mention this explicitly, but I'll say it. The other thing in 26 is you get a bunch of tax cuts that kick in. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, the deductibility of the cost of interest for things like car loans.

• 40:24Chamath Palihapitiya?

  These are big stimulative actions for the accelerated depreciation. You have big stimulative actions for the United States economy.

• 40:32Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I think what you guys are missing respectfully is that, you know, Trump promised something completely different. He said, "Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again to bring down the prices of all goods." And when he was running for election, he promised the Americans that he would reduce prices. Now, what's happened is prices have not come down. They've gone up 2.5% to 3.1%, but what really matters, and I think you guys are doing a great job, you know, pro administration, part of the administration, what you're missing is the American people don't believe you. And the American people are experiencing something different. And when you look at the approval rating, Trump's approval rating is at its historic

• 41:15Jason Calacanis?

  lows, and specifically on inflation, pull up the silver bullet and meta-analysis there. This is the disconnect, and this is why it seemed tone deaf last night when Trump was telling everybody it's great, and when you say it's the golden age, Americans aren't experiencing that. That's just not what they experience. They are experiencing grocery prices that have continued to go up, and they are experiencing unemployment that's gone up 15%. Whether it's the federal employees, whether it's private sector and you debate the numbers, or there's a golden age coming because of no tax on tips, these are all talking points. What the American people remember is the Trump administration said prices would go down. Prices have gone up. That jobs and manufacturing, there'll be all these incredible manufacturing things. Obviously, that's going to take years. That has not happened yet.

• 42:00Jason Calacanis?

  So I hope for the best. I hope inflation goes down to two, and I hope they turn this around. But the American people don't believe the Trump administration, and it's a big difference between promising stuff in 2024 and delivering it. And here we are in the first year, and the delivery that's come in from the Trump administration on inflation and on the economy is not good if you're in the bottom half of society that doesn't own equities. Period, full stop.

• 42:27David Sacks?

  So first of all, prices have come down. You look at gas prices, the lowest in five years, they're below $3 nationally. Now, I don't know how you want a new administration to come in and literally affect every single change on day one. How do you do that?

• 42:41Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, no, that's just what he said.

• 42:42David Sacks?

  No, what the president says, they would start working on it. They would start working on it.

• 42:45Jason Calacanis?

  Hold on a sec. I'm not saying it's possible. That's what he said.

• 42:48David Sacks?

  No, he said you start working on it on day one, and so he did. And look at the results. Inflation's now down to 2.7%, way below expectations. I don't know how you want a better report than this. Unemployment is very low. The only reason-

• 43:02David Friedberg?

  I do remember the economic target was 3, 3, and 3. 3% GDP growth, 3% deficit to GDP, and 3% inflation. They're below 3% inflation. They're above 3% GDP growth, and the deficit to GDP is not where it needs to be. So, cutting is still ahead. But I looked at the budgets for 2026 for a number of the departments in the cabinet over the last couple of days, and they do have big cuts that they're trying to implement across the federal government. We're going to be interviewing Scott Besant tomorrow morning. That'll come out shortly after this episode airs. But this is the catch-up conversation with Scott on how's the 3, 3, 3 plan going. But on two of the three metrics, J. Cal, it does appear like things are good. I'm not trying to be a

• 43:46David Friedberg?

  spokesperson for the Trump administration, but I'd say if you look at this just from the raw economic data and the goals of the administration, following that, there should be a flow-through in terms of job growth, the flow-through in terms of affordability, in terms of wage growth, all those other sort of economic indicators that actually affect people on Main Street every day. That's also TBD in the narrative. It's still to be written. But those high-level economic goals are still, you know, are starting to kind of fall within the framework of what they set out to do, which is generally good, right?

• 44:15Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I'm just pointing out the disconnect. Again, this is the disconnect with the American people.

• 44:19David Sacks?

  You're looking in the rearview mirror. I mean-

• 44:20Jason Calacanis?

  No, I'm looking at year one. Just year one. We're here at the end of year one.

• 44:24David Sacks?

  Well, it takes time to implement an agenda.

• 44:26Jason Calacanis?

  I totally agree. I'm just telling you, the American people don't believe the Trump administration right now. There's more work to do. That's the discount.

• 44:34David Sacks?

  The data that came out today is looking awesome. By the way, that Vanguard report that I mentioned that also exposes the AI job loss hoax. It also has a new economic assessment for next year. It's projecting 3% growth for next year, which I think is conservative and an improved labor market outlook for 2026. And it says the most robust improvement will come in the second half of the year. So Vanguard is saying that 2026 is looking very good. And by the way, that's when the fight for Congress will unfold is next year. So, you know, the thing about polls is it's obviously just a snapshot in time. And it doesn't tell you what things are going to look like six months from now or a year from now. I think they're going to look very good.

• 45:16Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, maybe he turns it around.

• 45:18David Sacks?

  I think it's already been turned around. It just takes time to kick in.

• 45:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, the public's perception, it hasn't turned around and inflation was supposed to go down and it stayed.

• 45:27David Sacks?

  It has.

• 45:28Jason Calacanis?

  No, it stayed at, it's still way above the 2% target.

• 45:32David Sacks?

  6% for the last three months.

• 45:35Jason Calacanis?

  No, it has not.

• 45:36David Sacks?

  That's what it has to say.

• 45:37Jason Calacanis?

  2.7.

• 45:38David Sacks?

  No, that's the, that's the, that's a year.

• 45:40Jason Calacanis?

  Problem, I think with the administration and your part of it, like you guys cherry pick numbers and it's not matching the numbers on the field. So when you cherry pick the gas number.

• 45:48David Sacks?

  This is CPI report.

• 45:49Jason Calacanis?

  The, the, the number.

• 45:52David Sacks?

  Open the cover of the Wall Street Journal. 2.7%, hold on, 2.7% CPI, 2.6% core. 1.6% for last three months.

• 46:02Jason Calacanis?

  Okay.

• 46:02David Sacks?

  What is hard to understand about this?

• 46:04Jason Calacanis?

  No, no.

• 46:04David Sacks?

  Obviously, the last three months are going to tell you what the trajectory is.

• 46:09Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, the, the fact is.

• 46:11David Sacks?

  You're looking for every excuse you can to basically downplay what is an awesome report. And just look at the stock market, which is ripping today because this is way below expectations. You're the only one who's not happy about this news, Jake.

• 46:24Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, no, the, the country's not happy about it. I'm not, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm doing fantastic. I own equities. I'm doing better than I ever have in my life. I'm talking about how the bottom half of America perceives it. This is the blind spot of the Trump administration. You've proved my point by not addressing it. Let's go to the next one.

• 46:42David Sacks?

  No, I haven't, what?

• 46:44Jason Calacanis?

  No, it's.

• 46:44David Sacks?

  I guess your point is, your point is that.

• 46:47Jason Calacanis?

  The American people expected that inflation would go down and prices would go down. Prices have continued to go up.

• 46:54David Sacks?

  The Fed has a 2% target. It's a little bit unrealistic to say that what you want to, you want to, wait, you want to have, you want to have a negative inflation rate?

• 47:03Jason Calacanis?

  Trump said prices will go down. They have not.

• 47:05David Sacks?

  This is your argument?

• 47:06Jason Calacanis?

  That's what the American people feel. Unemployment has gone up. They expected to go down. So the, this idea that we're in the golden age is not tracking with the bottom half of Americans. That's just facts, David. It's just facts. You have work to do. Trump has work to do.

• 47:21David Sacks?

  You're, you're saying that anything less than deflation, anything less than deflation in your view is, is not.

• 47:25Jason Calacanis?

  I did not say that. You keep telling, I keep telling you what I'm reporting in terms of facts. Then you tell me I said something different. I didn't say that. The American people are very disappointed in the Trump administration's first year when it comes to inflation and the economy.

• 47:40David Sacks?

  I don't understand how the numbers could be any better. We just blew past expectations here. 2.7% versus 3%.

• 47:46Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 47:47David Sacks?

  I don't know whose expectations, I don't know whose pulse you think you have the finger of, but the economists who put together these expectations were expecting 3%.

• 47:57Jason Calacanis?

  Pull up the chart here one more time for me. Just pull up the chart for me. Uh, so I can just explain that this isn't bias on my part. I'm just putting the fact on the field. No, it is not. This is, these are numbers that you can look at and see that Trump's two worst categories right now are the economy and inflation. The American people thought he would do better.

• 48:18David Sacks?

  These are snapshots in time and they're going to be completely different next year.

• 48:22Jason Calacanis?

  From February goes down. That's the snapshot time. Every month, you have 12 months there to look at.

• 48:27David Sacks?

  Let me explain. I don't know what's so hard about, this is a really partisan point that you're making. It, you're basically saying, look, the US economy is like a giant super tanker.

• 48:36Jason Calacanis?

  I'm independent. I'm not partisan.

• 48:37David Sacks?

  Can I finish my point?

• 48:39Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 48:39David Sacks?

  I mean, you must know this, and I think you're pretending not to. The US economy is like a giant super tanker. It takes time to turn around. It takes time to implement your economic agenda. It took the president the first six months of the administration to implement the big, beautiful bill, which is his economic program, but it doesn't even go into effect until January 1st. So the tax cuts have not gone into effect. The inflation reductions have happened. We've gone from nine percent under Biden to now 2.6% core, 1.6% last three months. I don't know what more you could want. Interest rates have come down. They're projected to come down even more because inflation's coming down. This is again, a huge ship that's in the process of turning around. And I predict that by next year, the numbers are going to be even better. Let me remind you of what happened in the early 1980s under Ronald Reagan.

• 49:24David Sacks?

  When Reagan took over, okay, the misery index was at like 20%. Reagan implemented his economic agenda, but it took a couple of years to actually implement it. By 1983, we actually had a very severe recession because Volcker had raised interest rates so much to tame inflation. We're lucky we don't have that issue today. In any event, it took like three years for Reagan to implement his economic agenda. And his popularity was very low by 1983, but by 1984, the program had worked and it was morning in America again, and he won the biggest landslide election, I think, in American history. So you've got to give it time for the president's agenda to play out and work. And it certainly looks like after 10 months, that is performing extremely well and we

• 50:09David Sacks?

  are just beginning to see the impact of it.

• 50:12Jason Calacanis?

  I think the core issue is Trump overpromised and underdelivered in year one, and it's not the golden age for the bottom half of Americans, and they don't feel it's the golden age. And I think just tackling that head on and saying, yeah, we have more work to do. And I actually think that's what the address last night was about. I suspect somebody, maybe Suzie or the chief of staff or somebody said, hey, we got to start communicating better about the cost of living and our promises during the election so that we turn this around. That's actually what I think is happening, but I don't have a horse in this race. I'm doing fabulous because I own equities. I'm happy. I'm concerned, sure, that the bottom half of society needs to do a little bit better. That's all.

• 50:56Jason Calacanis?

  But you know, listen, I'm never gonna win with you, Sax, because you're the captain of the debate club. You'll win every debate. You're incredible.

• 51:02David Sacks?

  Well, look, I mean, like the president, the president made the right point last night, which is he inherited a giant mess. Again, under the Biden years, we had a $3,000 reduction in in real wages by American workers. That's already gone up by $1,000 under President Trump in the first year. But yeah, if you're a worker, and you're just looking at your situation, you're underwater 2,000 relative to where you were five years ago. So obviously, you're going to be salty about that. But that's the situation that that President Trump inherited. I don't know how much more progress you could make in 10 months. But give it another year, and then we'll really see.

• 51:35Jason Calacanis?

  All right, I am rooting for you guys. I hope you turn it around in year two. Okay. Friedberg, we got an important story here. We have to get to.

• 51:44David Friedberg?

  Do you guys want to hear a crazy personal story for two minutes as a palate cleanser?

• 51:48Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, three, two. Oh, yes.

• 51:49David Friedberg?

  Which is an amuse-bouche? Okay, this is an amuse-bouche.

• 51:52Jason Calacanis?

  A little sorbet?

• 51:53David Friedberg?

  A little, a little pamplemousse sorbet? This is the craziest story in my life right now. Pull up the photo, Nick, the first photo. You guys remember my dog, Monty?

• 52:04Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this is the virtue signal dog.

• 52:06David Friedberg?

  No, this is the best dog.

• 52:08Jason Calacanis?

  This is the only one.

• 52:09David Friedberg?

  Oh, Monty's the good one. This is the only one I love. Monty, Monty was my dog for 10 years. I got him 10 years ago in January, and he died suddenly in May. He turns out he had a tumor on his heart, and his heart burst open in front of me, and he died. It was the worst thing. He was with me every second of every day. When I wasn't at work, he slept on my bed. He was in my office all day. You guys have seen him a million times in the background during the All In Pod. My best friend in the world, the greatest thing I've ever come across in my life. So he died suddenly. It was very brutal, very hard. So I'm at my house the other day. My next door neighbor walks in, and he's got this dog on his leash. Pull up this photo. This is this dog.

• 52:52David Friedberg?

  So my next door neighbor finds this dog at Rocket Dog Rescue. It was pulled out of a kill shelter. The vet estimates this dog is like a decade old. Today, I live probably 40 miles away from where we got Monty. He was found wandering the streets of the Mission District in San Francisco. This random dog here was found at some random kill shelter somewhere in California, pulled out of the kill shelter a few days ago, put into Rocket Dog, and rescued by my next door neighbor. Brings him over. He's walking him in the street. I'm like, oh, my God, that dog looks just like my old dog, Monty. We ran a DNA test. This dog is Monty's brother. What? This dog is Monty's brother. It is the craziest [BLEEP]. There's like a billion dogs on planet Earth.

• 53:35David Friedberg?

  And of the billion dogs, some random dog from some random litter from some street pup in the Mission District from a decade ago, found its way into a shelter, into another rescue center, into my next door neighbor's arms and brought back to my house months after Monty died. How crazy is that?

• 53:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What is his personality like?

• 53:52David Friedberg?

  I'm gonna hang out with him this afternoon. I gotta go see. But how crazy is this? Just it's Monty's actual brother from the same litter.

• 53:59David Sacks?

  He doesn't look like Monty in fairness.

• 54:01David Friedberg?

  Yes. The angles are off.

• 54:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Stepbrother? Monty's more robust.

• 54:04David Friedberg?

  Yeah, well, Monty was well fed. This dog lived in a friggin' kill shelter, so.

• 54:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Monty was a [BLEEP].

• 54:09David Friedberg?

  Take 10, take 12 pounds off Monty.

• 54:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But wait, where's the other?

• 54:12David Friedberg?

  DNA tests don't lie.

• 54:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Where's the dog that was being tortured by Revlon?

• 54:17David Friedberg?

  That dog's gotten, that dog's gotten robust too. Yeah. Was it Revlon who was torturing your current? She, she, Daisy, has a thousand siblings, not just one. And they are.

• 54:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Daisy, Daisy, I'm fine with. It's Mitchell, it's Mitchell Friedberg I hate.

• 54:32David Friedberg?

  Marshall, Marshall.

• 54:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Marshall Friedberg, I hate Marshall Friedberg. He ate the pistachios last Christmas.

• 54:38David Friedberg?

  Marshall looked like a little eight pound.

• 54:40David Sacks?

  Monty's father must have really gotten around San Francisco.

• 54:44David Friedberg?

  He had a great run.

• 54:45David Sacks?

  I mean, what are the odds of this?

• 54:47David Friedberg?

  Same mother, same father. It's not a half brother. This is the same father.

• 54:50Jason Calacanis?

  Are you saying Monty's dad was a pimp?

• 54:51David Friedberg?

  Same litter, same dog, same, same mother, same father, same litter on the streets of San Francisco a decade ago, and they all find their way in different parts of California and come to, and Monty's buried in my backyard and this dog, my brother.

• 55:04David Sacks?

  Samples.

• 55:05Jason Calacanis?

  What is it, the summer of love? Was it the summer of love?

• 55:07David Friedberg?

  You would say no way, but you gotta see better shots of it. I'll put more photos next time. Yeah.

• 55:14David Sacks?

  This doesn't make sense.

• 55:15David Friedberg?

  I know. It's the craziest ever. And by the way, like.

• 55:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, it doesn't look like they're related. I'll be honest with you.

• 55:21David Friedberg?

  Gotta find you a proper photo of Monty.

• 55:23Jason Calacanis?

  What's going on Chamath with Oki and Joker? How old are these dogs now?

• 55:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh my God, from your lips to God's ears, bro. Aki is 14 and a half. She turns 15 in July.

• 55:32Jason Calacanis?

  She's so precious.

• 55:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Joker's eight or nine. So touch wood, they're, uh.

• 55:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 55:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Golden Retrievers don't really live to 15, but my God, she's doing great.

• 55:42Jason Calacanis?

  You got a lot of good years. I was just on the, I was on the floor last Thursday snuggling with her and it was so precious.

• 55:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, you know what we did? The, I think the best thing that we did was we got much more disciplined about diet for Aki when she turned about 13.

• 55:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Little bit calorie restricted. It's not nearly as much. She lost a few kilos. It just helped her a lot walking. She's a little deaf unfortunately, but she can see. Dogs are the best.

• 56:09Jason Calacanis?

  Dogs are the best.

• 56:10David Friedberg?

  Here's, here's my other photo of the dog that Chamath hates. Pull it up just so you can see.

• 56:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  This is Marshall. This is Mark. Last, last Christmas at Nat's birthday dinner on the 26th, which is her birthday, Marshall Friedberg jumped on the table, started eating all of the pistachios and the nuts. Ruined all of them, slobbered everywhere. All, you know, David Friedberg was like, oh, look at that. Allison Friedberg was like, Marshall Friedberg? They, they had no control over what's going on in this.

• 56:38David Friedberg?

  Here, pull this photo up, Nick. This is a medical issue Marshall Friedberg's been dealing with. He wakes up with irrecoverable erections. So he can't walk.

• 56:46Jason Calacanis?

  What?

• 56:47David Friedberg?

  Pull this up.

• 56:48Jason Calacanis?

  You're recoverable.

• 56:49David Sacks?

  Oh my god.

• 56:51David Friedberg?

  So Nick, you gotta blur this out when you.

• 56:53Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, whoa, dude's packing.

• 56:57David Friedberg?

  So this little guy, he weighs like eight pounds.

• 56:59Jason Calacanis?

  How do you get rid of that erection?

• 57:01David Friedberg?

  He has these erections, and well, the doctors say like, you just gotta wait, that if it ends up staying for too long, there's gonna be a surgery, but like, right now, he's okay. But he can't move when he gets them, and he's stuck. And he'll just stand there, unable to move for like 20 minutes, like with his little erection.

• 57:13Jason Calacanis?

  Same thing happened, I gave Chamath some of my roast sparks, and he had a similar thing happen, he was frozen. That is a, that is a problem.

• 57:20David Friedberg?

  There's a Brian Johnson joke in here, but.

• 57:22Jason Calacanis?

  That is a problem.

• 57:23David Friedberg?

  Yeah.

• 57:23David Sacks?

  How's Moose doing, Jake Al?

• 57:27David Friedberg?

  Oh, here he is, Zach.

• 57:28Jason Calacanis?

  My special guy.

• 57:29David Sacks?

  Oh.

• 57:30David Friedberg?

  Is that your dog, Zach?

• 57:31Jason Calacanis?

  This is the Moose. The Moose is Moose. I'm trying to keep, oh buddy, oh buddy. This is my buddy, oh, what's that little good buddy? What are you doing? What are you chewing on, buddy?

• 57:40David Sacks?

  What's he chewing on?

• 57:42Jason Calacanis?

  I think he's got a paw. Get that out of your mouth, come on, get that out of your mouth. He is such a little love buddy. Shat, shat, little love bug.

• 57:53David Sacks?

  It's like a gremlin.

• 57:54David Friedberg?

  He loves.

• 57:57Jason Calacanis?

  It's great, it's great to see you so in control.

• 57:59David Friedberg?

  Don't eat the cones, Jason.

• 58:01Jason Calacanis?

  You're such a natural dog guy, Jason.

• 58:06David Friedberg?

  A disciplinarian.

• 58:07Jason Calacanis?

  This dog loves food.

• 58:09David Friedberg?

  You're really.

• 58:09Jason Calacanis?

  And he loves to wrestle. You're like a modern, you're like a modern Caesar Milan.

• 58:14David Sacks?

  Does he headbutt you?

• 58:16David Friedberg?

  The dog was for a long time.

• 58:19Jason Calacanis?

  Moose, take it easy, buddy. I know. He loves to wrestle, this dog.

• 58:23David Sacks?

  He's heavy, right? He's.

• 58:24Jason Calacanis?

  Well, he added about four or five pounds, because he wasn't eating all that much when we got him, and then we realized he needs a little bit of extra food, so we gave him a little more food, and he became a little less grumpy. And then he just, we take him for like, maybe three one-mile walks a day on the ranch, totally fine. If he misses a walk, dog's got way too much energy, so he's not, he's a ranch dog, not a city dog.

• 58:48David Sacks?

  Yeah, no, I know, I told you.

• 58:50Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, he needs to run. When he doesn't run, you got a problem. Alright, let's keep going through the docket here. Uh, that's dog corner, that's canine corner.

• 58:58David Friedberg?

  What do you guys think? That's a good corner. It's a good catch-up.

• 59:01Jason Calacanis?

  Canine corner is the best corner.

• 59:02David Friedberg?

  But how crazy is that? One, like one in a billion's gotta be that this dog lands up next to me. It's just the craziest thing. Anyway.

• 59:07Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, and, uh, yeah, there's no cat corner here. Cats are horrible. Shout out to our friends at Waymo for eliminating the cat problem in San Francisco.

• 59:16Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, that's just, that was the greatest update to their software ever. If they can eliminate more cats.

• 59:22David Friedberg?

  What's that paradox that the AI has where it's like, do I hit?

• 59:25Jason Calacanis?

  The trolley car problem.

• 59:27David Friedberg?

  It's like the cat problem. Just go for the cat. It's just go for the cat.

• 59:30Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely. You could get somebody there on time, or you could get them there 30 seconds late and take out a cat. Take out the cat. Less stray cats. Cats are horrible. A shout out to our cat ladies listening to the pod. I wonder how many cat ladies listen to this pod?

• 59:45David Friedberg?

  Zero.

• 59:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, there are a few.

• 59:48Jason Calacanis?

  Are there a few? Yeah, they, we hear from them on, they're on Blue Sky, talking about, oh God, I had a joke, I'm not gonna do it. All right. According to a Reuters report, Friedberg, China has built a prototype of ASML's EUV machine. Hey, if this is true, this report, it's, uh, it could have a profound impact on the AI race that we talked about. For those of you who don't know, ASML is the Dutch company worth $400 billion, 22nd largest market cap in the world. And they are the only company that makes EUV machines, also called lithography. That stands for extreme ultraviolet. That's how you make H100s. Here's a photo of one

• 1:00:32Jason Calacanis?

  of these giant machines. They cost $250 million to make and they take six months to make, filled with all kinds of important parts, Carl Zeiss lenses, et cetera. Since 2018, these machines have been limited for sale by the Dutch. Why? Why can't China buy these machines? Well, in 2018, Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, put pressure on the Dutch to impose export controls on China, and later that same year, they did. So, according to Reuters, in this news story, Friedberg, China used former ASML engineers.

• 1:01:10Jason Calacanis?

  Allegedly to reverse engineer the machines. Reuters has pointed out that the machine in China has not yet produced any working chips. It's a prototype. The CCP is targeting 2028 for working chips. Some sources say maybe 2030 is more likely. You've been talking about China lithography on the show. We can play the chariots of fire music that Friedberg insists we play when he does his victory lap, Chamath. Here's his victory lap, episode 224.

• 1:01:38David Friedberg?

  Last year, China announced and began a $37 billion investment in developing their own 3 nanometer chimp technology. China made a claim that this investment they had made was starting to pay off and they had developed their own EUV system. And their big semiconductor companies called the Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, in China, they launched a 7 nanometer chip with Huawei in their Mate 60 Pro, which is sort of like their iPhone competitor in China. And so they're proclaiming that they've already got this EUV technology. From what I understand, and Sacks would know better than I, it sounds like there was a lot of reverse engineering and workaround of existing technology in order to deliver

• 1:02:23David Friedberg?

  that system.

• 1:02:24Jason Calacanis?

  Who do you think has the best chance of challenging Nvidia?

• 1:02:28David Friedberg?

  My early prediction for 2026 is Huawei, where I think that there is lithography technology that exists in China that is not publicly discussed, that is going to be deployed in Huawei and all these fabs that they're building in mainland China.

• 1:02:42Jason Calacanis?

  So announcements 2026, impact 2027?

• 1:02:45David Friedberg?

  Probably fair.

• 1:02:46Jason Calacanis?

  Do you have a first? First on All In, Friedberg, congratulations on your weekly victory lap.

• 1:02:53David Friedberg?

  I honestly don't think that the Reuters story is necessarily news because I think it's a little bit of a narrow scope in trying to describe what happened, which is that they quote stole ASML technology because scientists are working on it. That's not really the full scope of what's been going on in China for a number of years. And it really understates the technological progress that China's independently made in using other systems to try and achieve lithography parity. So if you go back a number of years, the current kind of Investment vehicle is actually Chinese banks. Put capital into a fund that's roughly forty eight billion dollars, uh, US dollars. Which is actually what's called the National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Phase Three.

• 1:03:34David Friedberg?

  So there was Phase One, which started in twenty fourteen, which focused on manufacturing. So developing fabs with groups like SMIC. Phase Two was stood up in twenty nineteen, which focused primarily on design and materials. And then this Phase Three Fund was established in twenty twenty four explicitly to pivot to what they call choke points or bottlenecks in the manufacturing process. And state media has confirmed the existence of this Phase Three Fund and the intentionality of the Phase Three Fund to try and replicate lithography technology. Couple of months ago, if you pull up the link Nick, here's a publication on this paper.

• 1:04:12David Friedberg?

  So this is the leading research group out of China that's been backing into lithography technology using AI driven systems. They published this paper, which was a very good summary of where they are in July. Was this in Nature? No, it was in Light Science and Applications. And this paper is called Advancements and Challenges in Inverse Lithography Technology: A Review of Artificial Intelligence-Based Approaches. If you read into the paper and then you read the other publications from this particular research team at Tsinghua University. They have made a number of breakthroughs in using AI to try and reestablish alternative systems and the traditional Zeiss optics. And other control systems that are used in the ASML platform.

• 1:04:57David Friedberg?

  And the way that they've done it, I I won't spend too much time on it, but there's a bunch of neural networks that they've used, trained and have made discoveries from. Including doing things like working with suboptimal optics, meaning you can have optics that have a degree of diffusion. And then how do you actually recreate three nanometer printing techniques or three nanometer masks by having shadowy effects accounted for in the AI? So you almost like assume that the shadowy effects are going to come out and you print differently than you otherwise would. You don't need the degree of precision that you need and you don't necessarily need to go get the Zeiss optics. There was a. Another paper that was published early this year by another Chinese research team that actually demonstrated how they did use AI to discover a novel method for doing optics.

• 1:05:39David Friedberg?

  So there is a very broad and well-funded effort that's been underway for over a decade. But just in the last couple of years with artificial intelligence-based approaches, they've made a series of breakthroughs. It is very likely the case that Huawei already has a lithography system that they'll be putting into production. And this is why I kind of talked about it when we were in Vegas and pointed it out earlier this year. But again, I think Reuters just sort of maybe caught on to some narrow segment. But this is a bigger story and a bigger set of progress that's been made over quite some time.

• 1:06:08Jason Calacanis?

  Ramification, Sax?

• 1:06:11Jason Calacanis?

  Here and what you're thinking, obviously you've talked a bunch about, hey, let's sell our stack in there. And they're clearly working on their own stack. What's the ramification of this, if it's true?

• 1:06:23David Sacks?

  Well, I've never supported selling EUV lithography to China. It is probably-

• 1:06:28Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, selling the stack of H1, whatever the previous Nvidia stack was, yeah.

• 1:06:32David Sacks?

  EUV lithography, these machines that are made by ASML is probably our single biggest advantage in the AI race. Because they're the only machines that are capable of creating, say, two to three nanometer chips, semiconductors. And it's sort of the perfect export control because there's only one company that makes these machines. Like you showed, they're gigantic, they're expensive. So if you think about like trying to put an export control on a commodity, there'd be a lot of ways to circumvent it because it's a lot of sources for a commodity. But in this case, there's literally only one company that makes these machines. So it's been a tremendous advantage, I'd say, for the West that we have EUV lithography. I'm not surprised that China is trying to reverse engineer it. It's kind of the obvious thing to do.

• 1:07:18David Sacks?

  No advantages forever. It does seem likely that at some point they'd be able to figure out how to do it. So I think that this article- Is not altogether a surprise in that sense. I mean, I'm sure that China is trying really, really hard to reverse its near this. In the meantime, however, they've also made substantial progress with DUV lithography. So the previous generation of lithography before EUV was DUV. E is extreme, D is deep. In any event, DUV was supposed to sort of top out at, say, 14 nanometer chips, and China was able to push the technology to get to seven nanometer and now to five. So they've been able to get a lot further

• 1:08:01David Sacks?

  using DUV lithography than anyone thought possible. And that is why the Huawei chips, the Ascend chips are, they're not as good as our chips, but they're serviceable. And they've been able to use their prowess in networking to string more of them together. You have the Cloud Matrix 384 technology where Huawei will string together 384 of their Huawei Ascend chips into a rack, and that will perform comparable to an Nvidia rack, but using a lot more power. So the bottom line is China's been able to create a lot of these workarounds to our restrictions. But if they figured out how to reverse EUV, that would be, I'd say, a blow because it is a real advantage for us. But I'm not convinced that

• 1:08:45David Sacks?

  this Reuters story is the full picture. I think it's just a data point.

• 1:08:50Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Tramath, any thoughts here? If you want a very short summary of how the last generation of chips work, the best way to think about this is that the most profitable and valuable chips to date have taken a very compute-centric approach. That's why we've needed these ultra-advanced process nodes. But the reality is that in a world of infinite inference, let's say, the next generation of silicon will not take the same compute-heavy approach and will probably rely on a much more memory-centric architecture that uses a lot of SRAM. The value of that is that you can produce these things, as Sac said, at 14 nanometer, at seven, five, all of these process nodes that are much less advanced, that I actually think is the future. So in a weird way,

• 1:09:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If they steal this, which I think we should assume they've already stolen, quite honestly, and they've figured it out.

• 1:09:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The question is, how bad is it? That's the really important question. And the thing about a more memory centric approach for AI inference, or these next generation forms of silicon, it demands a lot more of compilers. It demands a lot more of the software. I still think that's where we are light years ahead. So I don't think it's the end of the world and we're still in a very good place. But it is bad.

• 1:10:07Jason Calacanis?

  Friedberg, weren't we supposed to start onshoring with the CHIPS Act? And maybe get trending towards having this production ability in America? And obviously, that's been really hard to do. And China and their relationship with Taiwan seems to be, and the possibility that they actually take over Taiwan in a military fashion has been this existential concern, or even short term concern.

• 1:10:35Jason Calacanis?

  Maybe it's a better way to say it.

• 1:10:36David Friedberg?

  I think the biggest security implication to consider at this moment is that both the US and mainland China are onshoring manufacturing. And that makes Taiwan less of a strategic point of interest for the United States and for United States industry. Maybe one of the ways to think about the positive aspects of what is going on, which is maybe call it the Balkanization of generally manufacturing, but specifically semiconductor manufacturing in this case, is reduce security concerns. So there's no longer this flashpoint perhaps in Taiwan. If China did invade Taiwan and the US had fab manufacturing, we're less likely to want to defend Taiwan. And frankly, if China has fabs on mainland, do they really need to invade Taiwan? What's the economic interest in doing so?

• 1:11:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, that's kind of where I was going with it. But if they also wanted to jumpstart, Friedberg, they could just go to Taiwan and take the machines. It's like, is that actually the plan?

• 1:11:27David Friedberg?

  Like, I don't know what the CCP's plan is. I think that's a pretty simple statement to make. I think just going to Taiwan is probably a lot more complicated than.

• 1:11:36Jason Calacanis?

  Of course it is. My point is, if this was super existential to get those chips for China, and they go to Taiwan, and they have them, then they've reverse engineered the machines by default.

• 1:11:45David Friedberg?

  We need to recognize, we keep using the term reverse engineering, as if ASML is the only way to do this. And it is not. If you read their papers, and you read what's coming out, there are alternative production and manufacturing methods and systems that are being developed in China that not only maybe provide parity to ASML, but get ahead of ASML. And I think this is really important to understand. China is not just in a catch-up race. They're in a primacy race. And they are trying to develop primacy in lithography technology, which will give them primacy in manufacturing, which will give them primacy in AI, which will give them economic leverage over the planet. And that is very critical for us to understand. This is not about stealing data from ASML. Like, no one gives a shit if you're sitting in China, you're thinking about, "I've got the world's best scientists, or some of the world's best scientists,

• 1:12:29David Friedberg?

  and I'm giving them the resources and I'm giving them the mandate to go solve this problem." The government, as I mentioned last year, put $40 billion against this problem, and said, "Go figure it out." And these guys at Tsinghua are publishing some groundbreaking research on how to do it.

• 1:12:44David Sacks?

  It's easier to catch up, or to copy than to innovate. Right? So if you're China, the first thing you'd want to do is just copy EUV and get that technology for yourself.

• 1:12:54David Friedberg?

  Well, let me ask you this. What would you do? So you're the AI czar, you're sitting in the United States, and China's got this lithography technology. Is your goal to steal their technology? Or is your goal to get your best scientists and say, "Let's get ahead of their technology"?

• 1:13:05David Sacks?

  If I'm China?

• 1:13:06Jason Calacanis?

  Neither. I think it would be to solve the problem. What is the actual economic, commercial problem we're solving?

• 1:13:12David Friedberg?

  And so if you can figure out a way to do manufacturing better, cheaper, faster than the way that China does it, you would obviously take that path. You're not trying to get to parity with China if you view yourself to be supreme to China.

• 1:13:23Jason Calacanis?

  But you have to understand, even with these EUV machines.

• 1:13:26David Friedberg?

  And the same is true on the other side.

• 1:13:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  At two or even sub-two nanometer scale, you have these incredible laws of physics that you are pushing to the boundaries of, which cause these chips to have pretty low yield. You have a lot of systems that actually aren't that efficient and highly utilized as a result. So these systems are brittle. The second thing is that when you have these compute-centric architectures, you end up making design decisions like HBM. They'll have to go and steal all the HBM, which is the high bandwidth memory business that SK Hynix and Samsung have. But again, that's where Nvidia and then Google have an effective monopoly.

• 1:14:00David Friedberg?

  Let me ask you a question, Sax. I mean, what's your strategic response if China next year goes into manufacturing with a sub-two nanometer system that's got higher yields, is faster, is cheaper than anything that we're seeing anywhere else in the world?

• 1:14:13David Sacks?

  Well, I don't think that's gonna happen. Let's talk about that if it actually happens. I don't think it's going to. But what would I be focused on right now? I would say we want to get more of the leading-edge manufacturing in the United States. TSMC has already opened a big fab in Arizona, and they're planning on increasing the size of that. And that's really important. And we should get all these restrictions out of the way. They're facing all sorts of permitting restrictions. I mean, all the stuff that Bernie's talking about, where he wants to slow down. I mean, he's talking about data centers, but not chip manufacturing, but the concepts are the same.

• 1:14:51David Friedberg?

  Yeah. Rohana, Elizabeth Warren, you've got-

• 1:14:53David Sacks?

  This is exactly wrong. I mean-

• 1:14:55David Friedberg?

  Anti-tech progress people saying, let's stop all this stuff. Meanwhile, China is not just racing to catch up, but they're likely going to get ahead of the United States. And if we're caught flat-footed because we've got a moratorium on development, a moratorium on production, it's going to be extraordinarily damaging.

• 1:15:12David Sacks?

  Right. Well, look, this is where I agree with you, is that if this Reuters report is accurate, it does speed up the timeline on China closing the chip gap from, you know, a decade or a few years.

• 1:15:22David Friedberg?

  You can go read the Tsinghua papers. You'll see that these guys are so advanced.

• 1:15:26Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If they care about being ahead, why are they publishing that paper?

• 1:15:29David Friedberg?

  So by the way, this is a really important point, and I've picked up on this from a number of different disciplines in scientific research. So what's been going on is scientists in China, they're very smart people, there's very great scientists there. And like all scientists, they don't think necessarily in terms of nationalism first, they think in terms of science. They want to publish their research, they want to be known, they want to be the discoverers of these new frontiers. And so they publish. And what we've seen in several instances is that the scientific research groups will publish, and they'll publish slightly ahead, and once they get ahead of the market or they get ahead of the world, suddenly they stop publishing. And it's almost like the CCP comes in and is like, okay, you guys are now, you know,

• 1:16:14David Friedberg?

  going too far, we don't want to tip our hat too far. And the stuff starts to recede. And I think there was this one paper on optics that is designed to replace the Zeiss monopoly in optics, that suddenly disappeared and that research team stopped publishing. I gotta find this paper, this came out last year. Fascinating. There are a number of these disciplines where there's publications that go to a certain extent and then they stop publishing. So I think that there's a little bit of a mechanism.

• 1:16:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's because of the funding cycle in China. You have every single local government that's given capital to invest in businesses. And so they compete and compete until it gets to the state level and you have one or two national champions.

• 1:16:47Jason Calacanis?

  But if this was so important, Freiburg, would there also be an argument to publish things that would send, that would be misinformation or send people down a wrong direction?

• 1:17:01Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, because you have to, again, the funding cycle is you get as a policy person in Shanghai, you get promoted because you make a good bet.

• 1:17:10Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:17:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but you may, so by the time it becomes a one national, to Freiburg's point, when's the last time you saw BYD or CATL publish anything meaningful?

• 1:17:20Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But when they were not the national champion, they were probably publishing very aggressively. But at that time, there was 50 different companies competing to be the national champion. So I suspect what's happening here is there's 50 different semi startups all over China. Everybody's trying to support their own local version and eventually when there's one, they disappear. Okay, interesting.

• 1:17:42David Friedberg?

  I mean, one of the things we see is China does give money to these research institutions on frontier science and then there's an industrialization. It's something the US isn't quite as good at. And I think it's, again, we've talked about the co-opting of our universities as research institutions over the last couple of decades, they've become these sort of employment centers, if you will, and they've become these sort of weird social engineering systems. They've kind of gotten away from some of the core research or that that's been kind of co-opted in China, there are these sort of dedicated research centers. And then there are universities where there's very clear independent research that goes on on university campuses. They typically get quite a bit of funding.

• 1:18:22David Friedberg?

  And the way this worked, if you look into the details of this China National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund, and there were three funds, one, two, and three, the funds get bigger and bigger as the research teams make progress. It's a very smart way of doing things from a central planning perspective. And then in phase three, they're now targeting these specific unlocks that then will enable industrialization. So they're funding some of this core research, the core research has these breakthroughs and then it gets industrialized. It's during that research phase where we see a lot of publications happening. And this is happening in life sciences as well. And in physics and in material science, and as soon as they start to get a little bit ahead of the curve, then it gets industrialized and the publications kind of stop. So I don't know if it's necessarily the CCP stepping in and saying, hey, stop publishing.

• 1:19:04David Friedberg?

  You're going to let the world know too much of what we're having versus, okay, the handoff is now happening and industrialization begins.

• 1:19:10David Sacks?

  Yeah, look, I would just say that to me, the takeaway here is that the timeline on China closing the gap with us is being sped up. Whether it's the fact that they're copying what we're doing, whether EUV is being reverse engineered, or maybe their scientists are figuring out a way to leapfrog. We are in a pretty close race with China and that's why I think it's really important that we don't listen to Bernie and others who just want to stop the progress. Because the progress is not going to stop. Is this going to happen in China? And that will be a big problem for the United States.

• 1:19:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  All right. Speaking of socialism slash communism, are you guys thinking about coming to Austin, my neck of the woods?

• 1:19:49David Friedberg?

  I've been, uh, pulling up these photos in Austin of these homes.

• 1:19:53David Sacks?

  You know, I'm doing it, right?

• 1:19:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Welcome to Texas, boys.

• 1:19:56David Friedberg?

  Like on the lake.

• 1:19:57Jason Calacanis?

  Sax already bought a house. Sax already bought us.

• 1:20:01David Friedberg?

  Hooked me up with the, uh, agent.

• 1:20:03David Sacks?

  What has she got you looking at?

• 1:20:04David Friedberg?

  I'm not sure yet. We're just gonna do a call.

• 1:20:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Guys are bidding against each other assholes.

• 1:20:08David Sacks?

  You can have my sloppy seconds.

• 1:20:10Jason Calacanis?

  You have the high ground, so you can negotiate hard. Uh, there is so much inventory, but only like 20% of the inventory is on the MLS. 80% here because it's a no reporting state is off market. So it's completely different than any other market, certainly California.

• 1:20:27David Friedberg?

  I want to be on the lake. Like if I'm gonna do this, I want to be on the water.

• 1:20:30David Sacks?

  Oh, really? I don't want the lake?

• 1:20:33Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, if you're, here's the challenge with the lake. People are gonna come up to your house and take pictures and hang out like two feet off your house and starting at 7 a.m.

• 1:20:43David Friedberg?

  Sax's house in San Francisco.

• 1:20:45Jason Calacanis?

  Everybody's zipping around the lake in motorboats, starting at 7 a.m. It's beautiful.

• 1:20:49David Friedberg?

  I love the motorboat.

• 1:20:50Jason Calacanis?

  It's great, but just understand it's gonna get loud.

• 1:20:56Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's nothing a good, good motorboating does.

• 1:21:00Jason Calacanis?

  Who doesn't love a good motorboat?

• 1:21:02David Sacks?

  Jake, I heard you're like an hour away. You're not even in Austin.

• 1:21:06Jason Calacanis?

  I'm in the hill country on my ranch, but we're getting a place closer to the city. So we're 30 minutes outside the city.

• 1:21:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  For 30 minutes? My God.

• 1:21:15David Sacks?

  I heard you're an hour. I heard you're in the sticks.

• 1:21:18Jason Calacanis?

  Nah, not that far. Not that far.

• 1:21:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, he's in the suburbs of the suburbs.

• 1:21:21Jason Calacanis?

  No, if you want to have like, you know, dozens of acres, you can't do that in the city.

• 1:21:26David Sacks?

  When I was growing up in Memphis, they called that bumble Egypt.

• 1:21:30David Friedberg?

  BFE.

• 1:21:32Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, if you want a ranch and you want like dozens of acres, you can't do that. You can get an acre to three acres inside of the city.

• 1:21:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I found an acre in Terrytown.

• 1:21:43Jason Calacanis?

  No problem. An acre is doable. Two acres is possible.

• 1:21:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know what's so sad? Even if this bill doesn't get on the books, which I think

• 1:21:50David Friedberg?

  Everyone's leaving.

• 1:21:51Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's a decent chance it ripped the Band-Aid off. The revenues of California are going to plummet. Plummet.

• 1:22:00Jason Calacanis?

  Man, it is, um, yeah, I mean, we saw the writing on the wall. Socialism is coming and, you know, this is one of the great things about having a United States of America. The different states can optimize for different things.

• 1:22:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That one bill, that one bill, this proposed billionaire tax, has single-handedly changed the trajectory of the California economy by a hundred to $200 billion over the next five to 10 years. It's an enormous cellphone. People were here willing to pay the money and now...

• 1:22:31David Friedberg?

  Yeah, people were willing to put up with a lot in this state. But as soon as you tell people, hey, we're doing property seizures, property seizures, or their threat of property seizures, or the fact that people didn't come out against property seizures, is enough for everyone to be like, see ya.

• 1:22:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  See you later.

• 1:22:47David Friedberg?

  The fact that all the politicians didn't in uniform stand up and say, this is ridiculous, we're never gonna let this happen, they let this happen. By not defending the property rights that are endowed in this country, they lost everything. They had to defend it.

• 1:23:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What do you think happens to the state budget over the next four or five years?

• 1:23:06David Friedberg?

  Trash. You're right, it's trash. And by the way, and that's what drives the socialist spiral, because then they try and do more property seizures and they try and get the money back.

• 1:23:14Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Well, who are they gonna tax? Everybody's gonna be gone now.

• 1:23:16David Friedberg?

  And here's the other crazy statistic that we never talk about. I was gonna try and put some data together and get it as a topic, but we should save it for the new year. But the California pension fund system is underfunded by roughly a trillion dollars. So these folks in the California pension fund system are sitting around, waiting for money to come to them every year for the next 30, 40, 50 years, and the money isn't there. They're guaranteed that money from this pension fund system and it's not there. What are they gonna do? It's a trillion dollars short. That's a state obligation.

• 1:23:46Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why would anybody hear something like that and think giving politicians more money is a good idea? These people are so fiscally irresponsible, they're fiscally illiterate.

• 1:23:57David Friedberg?

  There is that.

• 1:24:00Jason Calacanis?

  It's pretty clear to me that in New York and California, it'll be 60 plus percent taxes. And, you know, if you were living in a perfect society that appreciated it and you had this incredible safety, you had extraordinary schools and the roads and the public transit.

• 1:24:21David Friedberg?

  Everything works.

• 1:24:22Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, like Japan.

• 1:24:24David Friedberg?

  You'd pay 60% and be ecstatic.

• 1:24:26Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, you'd be like, okay, it's a lot, but hey, this is a pretty great place to live. If you're paying that and people are breaking into your home and there's nine overdoses a day, you're like, wait a second. And then on top of that, by the way.

• 1:24:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And they're seizing your private property now.

• 1:24:42David Friedberg?

  Seizing your property.

• 1:24:43Jason Calacanis?

  They're seizing your property. And by the way, they don't care about you. When it, when you look at the laws, I was just talking to some law enforcement people.

• 1:24:51David Friedberg?

  City's using your money to give homeless people vodka. It's just.

• 1:24:56Jason Calacanis?

  Well, I mean, if it was tequila, I mean, I have a good tequila brand we could give to the homeless. Maybe we could make a deal. Shout out to all the tequila coming to you.

• 1:25:06Jason Calacanis?

  Delivery's happening right now. In all seriousness, I was talking to some security folks and was talking to my security guy in Cal, who's in California and in California, not only did they not have the castle doctrine, they've replaced the castle doctrine where you can like defend your home if somebody comes into it with your gun and protect your family and your property. Now you have to have this duty to flee. So you have to be able to run out of your home with your family as opposed to defend your family. So they literally are telling the criminals, hey, listen, if you break into somebody's home in California, don't worry about getting shot.

• 1:25:50Jason Calacanis?

  They're going to have to run out or else they're in the wrong. Like this is deranged. The inmates have literally taken over the asylum. They have taken over the asylum. I realized this two years ago and I pulled the ripcord. Some Elon realized it six years ago when he tried to build a factory. He pulled the ripcord. You guys are realizing it now. Everybody's realizing this. New York, the hedge fund guys in New York and in Jersey and Connecticut, they realized it what?

• 1:26:16David Friedberg?

  L A Hollywood guys. I know a bunch of Hollywood guys leaving.

• 1:26:19Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I literally, this producer, one of the major producers who has produced billions of dollars worth of films came here last year. I met him at a football game. He said, tell me everything. I told him everything. He moved here. He moved here. He's gonna start making movies here and he is one of the top, top, I won't say who he is, but you know his films because his partner, who is an incredibly high profile comedian, like amongst the highest profile in history. Where they make films together. He moved here. Why? He doesn't want to live in L A and risk his family's life to a home invasion and the house burning down because they don't fill water in the reservoir. I mean, guys.

• 1:26:56David Sacks?

  Hopefully not everyone realizes it because I need to sell my house to someone.

• 1:27:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Good luck.

• 1:27:03Jason Calacanis?

  You'll be okay. You'll be okay. There's a Chinese billionaire looking to.

• 1:27:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  There's no.

• 1:27:06David Friedberg?

  Actually, you know, you know who you'll be able to sell your house to.

• 1:27:08Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Billionaires left in California.

• 1:27:10David Friedberg?

  It's whoever the politicians are that are able to aggregate power and money. In the socialist.

• 1:27:16Jason Calacanis?

  Gavin will buy your house and turn it into a homeless shelter.

• 1:27:20David Friedberg?

  You guys are gonna look, you guys are gonna look back on Gavin and realize he was the most upstanding, moderate governor that California had in modern era. And suddenly we're gonna be like, what the fuck?

• 1:27:32Jason Calacanis?

  And I think that's a great place to stop it, boys. We will be doing a couple of episodes between now and the end of the year and yeah, no weeks off. Hopefully we get to see each other over the holidays. I'll see you Sax and you as well, Chamath and Friedberg shortly.

• 1:27:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh, by the way, the president just signed an executive order reclassifying marijuana from schedule one to schedule three.

• 1:27:55Jason Calacanis?

  Schedule one to schedule three. Okay. Uh, that's something Obama wanted to do in the second term and never did.

• 1:28:02David Sacks?

  I think it's a good thing. I mean, schedule one is like heroin. You know, it's never made sense to treat it the same as heroin, you know? I know a lot of people aren't thrilled about marijuana. It's not great when people are smoking in the streets.

• 1:28:13Jason Calacanis?

  I don't like marijuana, but I agree with this decision.

• 1:28:15David Sacks?

  It's not heroin. So it's, you know.

• 1:28:17Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, it would be on, I think, most people intellectually would put it on the same level as alcohol, right?

• 1:28:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I just want it studied so that we can have toxicity labels. That's the big thing that I want. Because like if these kids.

• 1:28:29Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 1:28:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's the most important thing. Just put a tox label on these things. So you know what you're taking.

• 1:28:34Jason Calacanis?

  It's the, the strength of these things over the last 50 years has changed dramatically. And there are, yeah, there, there, there are these, um, shards they create of this like incredibly intense THC that will make you like go psychotic. Like it's really dangerous. So the smoking a joint from our youth is very different than smoking these like resins and stuff that they've created, apparently that are like a hundred times the potency, 200 times posing. And they can put you in a psychotic state. Really dangerous folks.

• 1:29:05David Sacks?

  Well, that's, that's where like the FDA should regulate it more like alcohol or something.

• 1:29:10Jason Calacanis?

  Hundred percent. Much better process, especially since kids are getting access to stuff. Yeah. All right, everybody. Another amazing episode of your favorite podcast in the world. Be all in pockets. Love you, boys.

• 1:29:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Happy holidays, everybody. Merry Christmas.

• 1:29:21Jason Calacanis?

  Happy Hanukkah. Merry Christmas.

• 1:29:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Happy Hanukkah.

• 1:29:24Jason Calacanis?

  Everything goes Christmas.

• 1:29:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I still miss whatever you're into.

• 1:29:59Chamath Palihapitiya?

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

• 1:30:21Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I'm going all in.