OpenAI Misses Targets, Codex vs Claude, Elon vs Sam Trial, Big Hyperscaler Beats, Peptide Craze

(0:00) Bestie intros (3:05) OpenAI misses targets, Codex gains on Claude (20:02) AI cybersecurity: a market that's about to explode (31:03) Elon vs Sam Altman lawsuit (41:00) Big tech smashes earnings, Capex explosion (52:44) Vibecoding nightmare: AI deleted someone's codebase (58:33) Retatrutide craze: peptides go mainstream (1:06:34) Friedberg's Supreme Court experience Apply for Summit 2026: https://allin.com/events 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://www.instagram.com/missthingthepod https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-misses-key-revenue-user-targets-in-high-stakes-sprint-toward-ipo-94a95273 https://polymarket.com/event/ipos-before-2027 https://x.com/aakashgupta/status/2049723185617412550 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03635 https://x.com/AISecurityInst/status/2049868227740565890 https://x.com/ns123abc/status/2049527702076449244 https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/openai-trial-pitting-elon-musk-against-sam-altman-kicks-off-2026-04-28 https://x.com/ns123abc/status/2049527702076449244 https://www.google.com/finance/quote/CSCO:NASDAQ https://x.com/chamath/status/2049864100143104420 https://x.com/zerohedge/status/2049895327566561683 https://x.com/lifeof_jer/status/2048103471019434248 https://x.com/levie/status/2049163935182733396 https://www.foxnews.com/media/carville-tells-dems-quietly-prepare-power-grab-dc-puerto-rico-statehood-supreme-court-packing

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

• 0:00Jason Calacanis?

  Jason, do you want to tell us about your new favorite podcast? Oh, it's so good. My feed is now, because, you know, since cancel culture ended, Saks, everybody uses the R-word and the F-word right now. My entire feed on Instagram is either gay, or Down Syndrome, or Bulldogs. It's one of those three. And then I stumbled upon the Miss Thing Pod, Miss Thing, and they do a bit called Gay Name Straight Name. Here's Gay Name or Straight Name for David. This is good news and bad news, Free Bird. Here we go.

• 0:35Speaker 01

  Gay Name or Straight Name. David. David, to me, is straight. Okay. But he has my perfect body. It can be confusing because I'm kind of like, are you gay? And it's like, no, I just want to be you, David. Totally. Well, it's so like the Michelangelo's David, the male ideal. It's like incredible body. Yeah. Kind of small. Sorry. Yeah.

• 0:59Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, it's a little rough.

• 1:03Speaker 01

  What are you watching there, J. Cal?

• 1:04Jason Calacanis?

  They basically nailed these two. But okay, keep going. I don't think Chamath is on their shortlist, but I know Jason will come up at some point.

• 1:11Speaker 01

  Gay Name or Straight Name.

• 1:13Jason Calacanis?

  Maybe this is it.

• 1:14Speaker 01

  Chamath. We're going on the count of three. Three, two, one. Gay. I'm thinking like Italian sweater, like really kind of like loud, vibrant sweater. He like wears it to like poker night with his like his boys. And like not, I'm not talking like straight poker. I'm talking like gay poker nights, like at the bar. Yeah, always talking about wine. Talks about wine. Always sort of like swishing. Yeah, exactly. Yep. Also, it's so like the guy at the gym, taking off his shirt, taking selfies. Yeah, and everyone else is kind of like, excuse me, Chamath, I'd like to use the mirror. Yeah. I'd like to see myself.

• 1:58Speaker 01

  See you at the next gay poker night. Totally. You bring the wine?

• 2:03Speaker 01

  We'll bring the sweater. Yeah.

• 2:04Jason Calacanis?

  There it is. Wow, they did do Chamath. That is fantastic. That is fantastic. A shout out to my guys at the Miss Thing Podcast. Wow, that was awesome. I think I'm gay.

• 2:16Jason Calacanis?

  I never knew.

• 2:35Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What did you do, like cameo? Did you pay them to do that?

• 2:37Jason Calacanis?

  Did it for me as a favor. So I did it for them.

• 2:39Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That's awesome. Well, thanks to those guys.

• 2:41Jason Calacanis?

  Thanks to the Miss Thing pod.

• 2:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I've seen those guys before in clips. I find them very funny.

• 2:46Jason Calacanis?

  It's so great. Shout out to my guys. That was awesome. All right, everybody. Seriously, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's the All In Podcast. With me again, David Friedberg, Chamaupatia David Sacks, and of course, I'm Jason Calacanis. You can call me J Cal if you're here for the first time. Topic one, OpenAI. They missed their targets for ChatGPT, Friedberg, both on users and revenue. Let's talk about it. The Wall Street Journal says in a breaking investigative report on Tuesday that OpenAI expected to hit 1 billion Wows, weekly active users, before the end of 2025. They missed that, and they still haven't hit the milestone four months into 2026.

• 3:31Jason Calacanis?

  Also, Chamaupatia, they missed their 2025 revenue target for ChatGPT. Exact number wasn't specified, but as we've talked about here, they're at a 20, 30 billion dollar run rate. There's a little bit of accounting nuance that is yet to be worked out in the industry. Two reasons why this matters, Sacks. OpenAI has $600 billion in spending commitments for compute. Just to put that in perspective, that's about what they're trading for on secondary markets. In other words, the entire value of the OpenAI enterprise equals their spend commitments in the coming year. CFO Sarah Fryer, who is coming to liquidity, is reportedly worried, hey, that revenue isn't growing fast enough to keep up with expense.

• 4:14Jason Calacanis?

  And OpenAI wants to IPO later this year. This has put Fryer and Altman in conflict, or maybe there's some natural tension there. Fryer doesn't think OpenAI is ready for public reporting standards, according to the Wall Street Journal. Altman obviously wants to move faster. So they released a joint statement. This is ridiculous, yada, yada, yada. Let's go to you, Sax. What do you think's going on here? Are these major headwinds or is this just managing expectations as the leader of the pack in the most important race of our lifetimes, the race towards super intelligence?

• 4:49David Sacks?

  Well, I actually have a little bit of a contrarian take on this. I know that OpenAI had a really bad week. Like you said, they had that Wall Street Journal article, which said that they've missed their numbers, they missed their 1 billion user growth target, they missed their revenue numbers, that's called into question whether they can afford the data center commitments that they've made. And then in addition to that, they've also had the lawsuit with Elon happening this week. So in the press, it ended up being, I think, a pretty bad week for them. But I have a contrarian take on this, which is I think that over the past week or two, if you look at kind of what's happening at the product level, it's been a pretty good couple of weeks for them. They released ChatGPT 5.5 and the reviews from, you know, people I talked to in Silicon Valley have been really strong.

• 5:32David Sacks?

  You talk to developers, coders, they're very happy with it. At the same time, Opus 4.7, which is the latest anthropic release, appears to be a bust, people are complaining about it. They're in a lot of cases are rolling back to 4.6. They're saying that Opus 4.7 is rationing compute, it's reducing thinking time, not as good, there were some bugs in Claude. So if you just compare ChatGPT 5.5 to Opus 4.7, it does appear that OpenAI has had a better couple of weeks on a product level. And I think there's reason to believe that the product improvements will continue. GPT 5.5 is based on a new base model called Spud, which is the first base model upgrade they've done in, I don't know, over a year.

• 6:17David Sacks?

  And having a new base model will pave the way for future improvements as well. So I think OpenAI is feeling pretty optimistic about their product right now. And I think you're starting to see on X, some of the developer mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they are shifting their coding usage from Opus to GPT 5.5. So I think that Sam may end up being right, but for the wrong reason.

• 6:46David Sacks?

  And what I mean by that is that when he made these big compute commitments, it was based on those estimates of hitting the billion users on the consumer side and hitting those revenue targets. The consumer business ended up being weak. So they missed those targets. But in the meantime, coding has become the all-important sector of AI. And because they made all these compute commitments and they built out these data centers, they have more compute than Anthropic right now. Anthropic is token constrained. It's reducing their ability to serve Mythos, for example. It's causing them to engage in compute gating with Opus 4.7. And I understand why Dario made that decision. I'm not saying, I mean, it was a prudent business

• 7:29David Sacks?

  decision. I'm not criticizing him for it. But I think, again, I think Sam may end up being right here for the wrong reason, which is he missed on consumer, but enterprise is going gangbusters and is giving him the ability now, I think, to catch up on coding.

• 7:43Jason Calacanis?

  Here's your Polly Market.

• 7:44David Sacks?

  Which is the all-important market right now.

• 7:46Jason Calacanis?

  Of course. And we talked about Grok and Cursor teaming up last week, Elon and the team over there. Polly Market showing now a 32% chance that OpenAI goes public by the end of 2026. This is down from 60% in December. And Chamath, you gave a bit of a warning, hey, there's only so many dollars to go around. SpaceX IPO is obviously getting out first. And now, if OpenAI doesn't go out this year and Anthropic does, this sets up an interesting dynamic. What are your thoughts here, generally speaking, about the massive commitment that OpenAI has made? Are they going to run off the cliff? Or will it wind up being brilliant, even if it wasn't strategically for the exact reasons?

• 8:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think they're going to be fine. I think this is a multi-trillion-dollar company. I think Anthropic is a multi-trillion-dollar company. I think the thing that's happening right now is a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening inside of the world of AI. And there is one very specific choke point.

• 8:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  That is constraining everything which is access to the power that's necessary to drive these tokens. To the extent that OpenAI missed, I think what that is, is an insight to not enough compute capacity today. And that problem is only getting worse. You've already seen that with Anthropic as well, where they just found a way to economically induce Amazon to give them enough capacity so that you don't have to route through bedrock to get to the Anthropic models. You're also seeing them do differentiated deals now with economic participation on top of what they already had from folks I Google to give them more capacity. What is my point? Everything in this market is power constrained.

• 9:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The reason that these folks may miss a number or a forecast have nothing to do with demand. It is entirely 100% due to the supply of the power necessary to generate the output token. There is a really interesting thing that was just announced today that will make this problem even worse, which is what you're starting to see now is backlogs build up of not just the access to the power, but then the componentry that's actually necessary. Not just resips and not just nat gas turbines, but now you're talking about transformers and all the actual tactical grid infrastructure. Why is this important?

• 10:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If you look at the actual amount of gigawatts that are under construction, we have a huge mismatch now. People have announced all these projects, Jason, but less than half of it is actually being built, less than half. Most of it is stuck in red tape. Most of that is because there are these supply chain delays, so there's no credible strategy to turn any of this stuff on. Who will this hurt? It will hurt Anthropic and OpenAI the most. Who will this benefit? It will benefit the hyperscalers, specifically Oracle, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google. And now what you're going to see is a negotiation and a trade back and forth.

• 10:57Chamath Palihapitiya?

  How much equity do I have to give up? How much control do I have to give up to get access to the compute versus? How badly will I miss my growth forecasts if I don't? And now what that means is, and we spoke about this last week, that's a huge lane for Grok to just run through and SpaceX to run through because they have a ton of excess capacity. And so I think the cursor deal was the appetizer. But if I were Elon now, I'd be running all over this market because if the models catch up in quality, I think he could also do something really crazy with Anthropic or OpenAI right now. Now, maybe not OpenAI because of the

• 11:35Jason Calacanis?

  We'll get into the lawsuit in a moment.

• 11:36Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The baggage?

• 11:37Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 11:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But man, he and Ari should do a deal tomorrow.

• 11:41Jason Calacanis?

  So you're framing, hey, the the limited resource here is compute. The demand is off the charts.

• 11:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, the limiting resource is power.

• 11:50Jason Calacanis?

  Power, which then powers compute, which then provides tokens, which then services the massive developer and coworker and all these other projects that consumers and enterprises can't get enough of.

• 12:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Got it. And Jason, the other factor that complicates that for Anthropic and OpenAI is all the stuff that's sort of sitting around thumb twiddling. Forty percent of that is going to get canceled because they've done such a poor job of creating a good positive halo around AI that forty percent of all the announced projects get canceled because forty percent of all projects in the last four years have been canceled.

• 12:28Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, and there's, there, there are some bad feelings about data centers, AI, jobs, et cetera. And that's causing some headwind. People are, you know, literally doing violent things in society and blaming data centers and AI for it. I don't want to give it too much airtime. Friedberg, what's your take on the chessboard we're looking at here? Either through compute, energy, or through going public on a business level? You know, the strategic nature of capital, compute and energy now playing a role in this massive amount of demand? Still a ball in the air kind of game.

• 13:06David Friedberg?

  BCG had this theory, I think I talked about this once before, called the rule of three, where they've shown time and again that any stable, mature competitive market evolves to a four to two to one ratio of market share for basically 90% of the market. So there's a market leader that has four times the market share of the second place. That's two times the market share of the third place. This is the case in pretty much every mature kind of competitive market. So you can kind of think about AI probably evolving into a consumer market and an enterprise market. OpenAI, even if they're not at a billion, they're still at 900 million weekly users, which is well ahead of whatever Claude is at. I think Claude is like probably sub 100 million. Sax, you may know. And then Gemini is probably closer to them.

• 13:51David Friedberg?

  It's 700 to a billion, somewhere in that range, probably pretty neck and neck with OpenAI. So, you know, the consumer market looks like it's trending towards a chat GPT slash Google fight for first place and second place, and then probably Anthropic in third place. And maybe Elon emerges and takes off, enabled by his compute capacity. And then the enterprise market is a little bit of a different story, and that's its own market, which is kind of anthropic. Or probably Google in the lead, actually, if you look at all the Vertex use. Google claims that 75% of GCP customers are active users of Vertex. So there's probably a pretty sizable market share that Google's captured on the enterprise side as well.

• 14:34David Friedberg?

  This is also probably why Google's stock has absolutely ripped over the last couple of months, is they're literally in first place or fighting for first place in enterprise and consumer. But I still think that there is a lot of opportunity, to Chamath's point about the compute and energy capacity constraints, in improving how we actually scale and deploy models in both the enterprise and the consumer setting. And it is such early days. And I just want to highlight this paper that came out from MIT, from these two scientists. And these guys published a paper on pruning techniques in neural networks. This paper showed that you could actually reduce the size of these networks by 90% and get the same accuracy out by pruning very large models down to smaller models.

• 15:19David Friedberg?

  And then you can make a selection on which model to run for inference. And by doing this, you can actually reduce inference costs by 10x. You can get 10x the output per energy unit that goes into the data center with no loss of accuracy. And so it's a really interesting, call it algorithmic technique, that can be applied to the existing large models to actually make them much lower energy use. So if you think about it, you're firing up a very large model to answer a very simple question. You can actually prune away that model. Now, this is probably going to be the case in AI applications as it is in traditional Google Search. There's a long tail of searches, but there's a few searches that account for a large percentage of search volume.

• 16:02David Friedberg?

  It's like, what is the weather, what are the movies, times?

• 16:05Jason Calacanis?

  Sports scores.

• 16:05David Friedberg?

  What's the stock price? Like, there's a certain set of things that make up the bulk of consumer energy. And there's probably a certain set of things that probably make up the bulk of coding output as well. And so if you can get that 80% of searches or chat interfaces or coding requests reduced down through pruning techniques to smaller models, and then you have a whole set of smaller models that can be called dynamically, and you reduce inference cost by 90%, you can make much more use, call it 10 times the use, on data center and energy capacity than we can today. So I would argue that we're still in the very early days of getting efficiency in terms of output and tokens. And we're just in the very kind of early stage of that, which also unlocks the opportunity for guys like Elon to reinvent how this is done and potentially compete pretty aggressively.

• 16:50Jason Calacanis?

  There are two ways to win. You could throw compute at it, or you can do SLMs, small language models, and VSLMs, verticalized small language models. So if you had a verticalized small language model for the weather, let's say, that doesn't exist, but you can use it as an example. They will have one for travel as an example. When you hit Google for flight information, it's obviously going to route you to something lighter and faster that uses Google Flights, and Google Flights has been incorporated into Gemini. Gemini now is right behind, 750 users.

• 17:25Jason Calacanis?

  And it's exactly what we discussed, I don't know, 18 months ago on this podcast, Friedberg, that what if they put it at the top? And what would that do to their search revenue? Search revenue is surging and they're also surging. So they figured out a way to balance those two competing forces, having search results that are AI-enabled and still getting people to click on links. They've done it brilliantly, apparently, and the stock is rewarding them.

• 17:50David Friedberg?

  I'll just add one statement to what you said, J Cal, which is like you're using what I would call a human heuristic on smaller models. And I think what we're evolving to is humans don't intuitively know what this model is. It's not just a verticalized model, but there are going to be models that will be discovered through automated pruning techniques that will then be working in concert. So lots of small models that link together, and we don't define each model by some human heuristic, like this is a search travel model.

• 18:18Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, this is a MAPS model.

• 18:19David Friedberg?

  And so we don't, we don't, we don't know why these models work the way they do when they get broken down, but I do think that that's really where the evolution is happening. So effectively, a model becomes a macro model. It's got lots of smaller models underneath it that can be dynamically called, and that allows you to have 10x the inference for the same unit of energy.

• 18:36Jason Calacanis?

  Sax.

• 18:37David Sacks?

  Let me just build on your point about Google, J Cal. I would say that if there is a single reason why OpenAI did not hit its user targets and its revenue targets, certainly around consumer, you'd have to say it's because Google managed to take meaningful share. You know, they were basically nowhere a year or so ago. Sergey came out of retirement, helped focus the company. And like you said, they did a brilliant job improving Gemini and putting it at the top of search, incorporating it. Now, that being said, again, I don't think the news is all bad for OpenAI because I do think that the 5.5 release was great. We're hearing really good things about Codex.

• 19:18David Sacks?

  I do think that Codex is taking share in coding tokens right now. And I just think we're in a really interesting place where these companies are constantly one-upping each other. I mean, two weeks ago, it looked like Anthropic was going to be completely dominant, right? I mean, Anthropic was growing at 10x, OpenAI was growing at 3x, and it looked like.

• 19:37Jason Calacanis?

  And then the servers started going down. Did you see that this week, Sax? The servers were going down. People in my office were complaining, we can't get on Claude.

• 19:45David Sacks?

  Listen, competition brings out the best in everyone. Anthropic forced OpenAI to compete. Google's forced OpenAI to compete in consumer. I just hope the market stays competitive for as long as possible. I do think that's what's best for consumers, our economy, and for our country overall. Let me just say one other area where I think OpenAI had a good week is in this red hot area of cyber. Obviously Anthropic made a huge splash with Mythos. It hasn't been commercially released, their compute constrained, but as a proof of concept or training model, it hit a new level of capabilities with cyber. But now, OpenAI has released a new model called GPT-5.5 Cyber, which has just been through a bunch of tests,

• 20:27David Sacks?

  and they've shown, this was testing done by the AI Security Institute, that GPT-5.5 is the second model to complete one of their multi-step cyber attack simulations end to end. So it has the same level of capability as Mythos, and it does appear to be commercially ready. You know, they've got the compute to serve it. So I do think that that's a big accomplishment. I mean, look, we knew that other cyber models were coming. It wasn't just going to be Mythos. In fact, within six months or so, all the frontier models are going to have Mythos level cyber capability. But it's impressive that OpenAI got this

• 21:07David Sacks?

  GPT-5.5 Cyber out so quickly. And I think 5.5 might be the first cyber model that cyber defenders actually get to use, because again, I don't think they're as compute constrained as Anthropic is.

• 21:20Jason Calacanis?

  And this is an incredible opportunity, you know, for the CrowdStrike and Palo Alto Networks of the world, both of which have been on the program. They come out and they start attacking this space. Man, you could really see everything get tightened up. And this could be an incredible revenue stream for everybody who's got, whether it's Cursor, Claude, or OpenAI, or Gemini. This is an amazing opportunity to tighten up.

• 21:47Jason Calacanis?

  As much as it is to get attacked.

• 21:48David Sacks?

  Can I make a point about that? Because there is so much fear right now, almost a level of panic about Mythos. People are treating it like a doomsday weapon or something like that. It's not. It's simply that the frontier models have reached the point where they're capable of automating cyber activities, just like they're capable of automating coding. But that means that a model could power up a cyber attacker or cyber defender the same way they can power up a coder and allow them to discover a lot more vulnerabilities. So there is obviously a risk there, but I think it's important to understand that Mythos or GPT 5.5, it doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It just discovers them. The bugs were already in the code. They were sitting there waiting for some hacker to discover.

• 22:34David Sacks?

  If we can now use AI to find these bugs in advance, these vulnerabilities and patch them, then you actually harden our infrastructure and you harden our security. I also believe that this leap from, let's call it pre-AI cyber to post-AI cyber, it's going to be, I think, a big one-time upgrade cycle because again, you're going to find all these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But I think that once we get past that upgrade cycle, you're going to reach a new equilibrium between AI-powered cyber offense and AI-powered cyber defense. It's going to become a lot more normal. It's not going to feel like this huge disruption, which is to say, I think, you know, people are treating this as like some existential threat. I don't think it is as long as everyone does what they're supposed to do, which is

• 23:19David Sacks?

  use the new capabilities to harden their code bases and infrastructure and security before the hackers get a hold of these capabilities.

• 23:27Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah. And if Chamath, if you were to look at this, to build on Sax's point, there are about five million or so security experts in the world. We talked about token cost, 40 hours of tokens, just pounding it, you know, a week. You could create another five million for $100 per chief security officer, per.

• 23:48Jason Calacanis?

  Security experts, so it's the volume of security expert agent sacks to your point. Yeah, you could have 50 million of them, 100 million of them. They're not finding something you need. They're just, they never sleep. They're relentless in their pursuit of these problems. It's a really great point.

• 24:05David Sacks?

  Just kind of just refine that. So yeah, there's probably 5 million people in the cyber industry, but there's probably only a few thousand really elite hackers.

• 24:11Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 24:12David Sacks?

  Those hackers didn't have the time to go after the entire surface area of every possible attack vector out there. And so if you train a model to do what they do, obviously, like you said, it can operate with a scale and speed that a human hacker can't. So obviously, you know, what you need to do is get these tools in the hands of the white hats. Let them do the cyber attacks themselves to then find the vulnerabilities and patch them before the black hats get a hold of these capabilities. But I think it's just, just one last point on this, I'll stop. It's just, it's really important to understand that the Chinese models are going to have these capabilities within approximately six months.

• 24:49Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, they have them now in deep C4 for sure. They've got some level.

• 24:52David Sacks?

  Well, nah, deep C4, I mean, deep C4 is impressive in a lot of ways, but its capability is not at the frontier. It's maybe 80, 85% of, let's call it the American frontier.

• 25:02Jason Calacanis?

  Chamath, you wanted to get in on this. Let's get Chamath in.

• 25:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Two things. The reason that this is even possible is because humans are error prone. And when humans code, they create holes. And so humans exploiting humans is where we've been for a long time. Now we have computers exploiting humans because the computers go and seek out all these bugs that humans wrote. In the next phase, it'll be machines versus machines. And so I think the nature of cyber is going to completely change. Probably in the next five or six years, there'll be so much reason to rewrite all of the software that runs the world. In one part because you're going to be asked to show more operating leverage and revenue growth, but in another part because everything else that was handmade in the past is just

• 25:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  fundamentally insecure. Either way, all roads will lead to all the operational software that runs the world will get rewritten. More and more of it will be written by machines, more and more of it will be impregnable as a result. But then the cyber threat actually will only increase because then you're going to try to figure out how to use a machine to inject something into another machine so that some agentic loop injects some malware or injects a bad token. And I think that's a very complicated thing. What I will tell you is, I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say this, but a very good, probably the best cybersecurity company in the world, run by one of the very best CEOs in the world,

• 26:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

  who may or may not be speaking at liquidity, would tell you that they have penetrated and can essentially manipulate every model. Let me just say it roughly that way.

• 26:43Jason Calacanis?

  Okay, perfect. Yeah, at the breakthrough prize, which three of the four of us were at, I talked to George Kurtz, the other person you were kind of describing was not that person.

• 26:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, I was sitting beside Nikesh. Yeah, I'm talking about Nikesh.

• 26:54Jason Calacanis?

  Well, Nikesh and George are the two guys leading this, Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike. And they understand, what George told me was, there is just a line out the door of people who want this product or service. And if you look at it, Friedberg, like the murder rate, like, we're sitting here with the lowest murder rate in the history of humanity. It has gone down massively in our lifetimes, but massively over the arc of history. I think that's what's going to happen with cyber. There is only so many attack vectors, and the remaining attack vectors are just going to be human factors, right, Friedberg? That's always been the case. And as we make the software more resilient, then the weak link is, you know, the secretary who puts her...

• 27:34Jason Calacanis?

  Post-it note, you know, with the password there or the accountant who, you know, uses their dog's name plus one, two, three for their password, right? That's the, the historical one. Okay. Let's, any, anything you want to add, Friedberg? Has we wrapped there?

• 27:48Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Why is your bed so messy? By the way, why can't you just ask the room service to come in and clean your-

• 27:52Jason Calacanis?

  I can tell you what happened. Listen, I'm here in Atlanta.

• 27:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And also, why don't you have a suite like where there's two rooms? Like, is it just one room?

• 27:58Jason Calacanis?

  It is, it is.

• 28:00Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Either you're cheap or poor. Which one is it?

• 28:04Jason Calacanis?

  I'm cheap. Here's, I'll tell you what, here's the situation. I'm in Atlanta for the Knicks game tonight.

• 28:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You're in one room.

• 28:10Jason Calacanis?

  Here's what I do. I just want to explain to you value for value. Some people spend their money on private jets and they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I spent $30,000 on courtside seats. I don't want the suite. I want to put it into the seats. I want to be courtside.

• 28:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You can do both.

• 28:24Jason Calacanis?

  I guess I could do both too. I don't, I'm, I'm in the process of becoming-

• 28:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I don't understand.

• 28:28Jason Calacanis?

  Of embracing my richness. Okay?

• 28:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If you've already convinced yourself that you should spend $30,000 for courtside tickets, which I think is outrageous, but okay, you've already convinced yourself-

• 28:39Jason Calacanis?

  They're more like 10K each, but yeah.

• 28:40Chamath Palihapitiya?

  A hotel room that has two rooms, okay?

• 28:43Jason Calacanis?

  I'm taking that.

• 28:43Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Probably cost 15% more than what you're paying.

• 28:46Jason Calacanis?

  It's 2X, but yes, you're right. I'll get the, I'll get the hotel room.

• 28:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Okay, or 20, or 20% more, but you just look so sloppy.

• 28:52David Friedberg?

  Like 200 bucks a night? So you pay 400 a night and you get another room?

• 28:55Jason Calacanis?

  I mean, it's, it's Atlanta. The most, I'm in the best hotel, the most expensive hotel is 500 a night in Atlanta. It's no big deal. But everything's sold out because all the Knicks people are coming here.

• 29:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So you're selling me double that would have been a thousand and you couldn't spend a thousand?

• 29:06Jason Calacanis?

  Everything is sold out because the Knicks are here.

• 29:08David Friedberg?

  Do we have to look at your dirty bed?

• 29:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's gross.

• 29:11Jason Calacanis?

  The bed's not that dirty. Come on. Oh, just deal with it. Okay. Take it out of post.

• 29:15David Sacks?

  I have a private jet story about flying to Atlanta.

• 29:18Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, tell us.

• 29:19David Sacks?

  You reminded me. Okay. So yeah, there was some event there. So I flew my team there. You know, there's a few people on my plane and it's kind of a long flight. It's what's like four hours or something.

• 29:30Jason Calacanis?

  From the bed, yeah.

• 29:31David Sacks?

  Yeah. So I went in the back to, to sleep. Well, first, you know, we, we started the flight and I had a few bottles of Pappy Van Winkle on, on the plane. And so we started off with like a drink and then I went in the back and, and fell asleep and I woke up basically when we landed. So I come out and like all three bottles are basically cashed. Happy Van Winkle.

• 29:50Jason Calacanis?

  Oops, those were like two grand a bottle.

• 29:53David Sacks?

  No, no, there are more. These were like antique bottles. Like one of them was like.

• 29:56Jason Calacanis?

  From your plane. I have one of those from the old Falcon.

• 29:58David Sacks?

  Yeah, they were like these vintage.

• 30:00Jason Calacanis?

  They were $4,000. I remember you.

• 30:02David Sacks?

  Anyway, you can't even find this anymore. So these guys, they asked me like, hey, Sax, how much did it cost for you to fly us to this event? And I said, well, about $8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 of Happy Van Winkle.

• 30:20Jason Calacanis?

  Well, you gotta, you gotta fuel the vibes as well as the plane. It's uh. Is Atlanta nice? I've never really spent any time in Atlanta. People still work for you? Are they, are they? They called in. Atlanta, is Atlanta nice? Listen, last year I went to the Detroit games and that city was on the rebound. Atlanta has an incredible opportunity to rebound. I'll say it that way. There's a great opportunity for them to upgrade the city. I went to Waffle House at midnight last night. There was no shootings. Okay, let's keep moving. By the way, do you get loyalty points at the Best Western Atlanta or? I get double points because I use my Best Western Visa card. Yeah, it's everywhere you want it to be.

• 30:58Jason Calacanis?

  All right, use the promo code JCAT and get 1,000 extra points in other OpenAI news. Musk versus Altman, the trial of the century, maybe the decade, has started. Elon is of course accusing OpenAI of breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment. He's accusing OpenAI of essentially flipping a nonprofit into a for-profit. He's seeking 150 billion in damages that they revert back to a nonprofit, that Altman and Brockman be removed. And there were some fireworks between Elon and the OpenAI lawyers. Elon kind of leveled up the discussion. He said, quote, "If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed. That's my concern."

• 31:44Jason Calacanis?

  Obviously, there's a ton of interesting nuances here. Specifically Greg Brockman, keeping a diary where he was journal maxing his plans, like a Bond villain here. And the excerpts from his diary include, "Conclusion: We truly want the B Corp. The true answer is that we want Elon out. If three months later we're doing B Corp, then it was a lie. Can't see us turning this into a for-profit without a nasty fight. I'm just thinking about the office and we're in the office and this story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him. In the end, it's still about wanting a for-profit just without him, yada, yada, yada. Friedberg, your thoughts on this case? Is Elon gonna win?

• 32:27David Friedberg?

  I just don't know why Greg Brockman's got a friggin diary where he's like literally documenting. I mean, I love the guy, but what the [bleep] is he thinking? Like, you're just sitting here at home and like, "Let me write about the crime I'm committing or let me write it like, and let me record it and by the way, let me never delete it? I don't understand this."

• 32:45David Sacks?

  It's not just journal maxing, it's discovery maxing. It's smoking gun maxing.

• 32:51David Friedberg?

  I don't get it. I don't get it.

• 32:54Speaker 05

  I mean, do you guys remember from The Wire, that scene where the guy's like, "Is you taking notes on a criminal [bleep] conspiracy?" This has got everybody in the room. Can we play that clip? It's like, "What the [bleep] are you doing Greg?"

• 33:09Speaker 06

  Nick, is you taking notes on a criminal [bleep] conspiracy? [bleep] is you thinking, man?

• 33:16Speaker 05

  If you're going to commit a crime, you do not write down the date and time of the crime in your journal.

• 33:23David Sacks?

  Oh, look, we don't know it's a crime. Let's not.

• 33:25Speaker 05

  Okay, sure.

• 33:26David Sacks?

  Don't characterize it as a crime, but.

• 33:28Speaker 05

  Well, yes. You keep the shenanigans.

• 33:30David Friedberg?

  Chamath, do you keep a diary?

• 33:32Jason Calacanis?

  What do you think?

• 33:33David Friedberg?

  J. Kell, do you keep a diary?

• 33:36Jason Calacanis?

  I believe ruminate. No, I'll tell you right now. Ruminati is the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a about your feelings, writing your feelings down. It's only gonna make you miserable. Talking to your spouse about your feelings. Just go to a beautiful dinner, sit courtside at the Knicks, and do what I've been doing for 30 years. Retard maxing. Retard maxing. Register goes up. All you have to do is work. Start new projects, nine out of 10 foul, place nine out of 10 bets, one wins, and you're golden. Go sit courtside at the Knicks game.

• 34:08David Friedberg?

  Keep going. Life's too short.

• 34:10Jason Calacanis?

  And just keep moving forward. Don't write anything down. Period, full stop.

• 34:15David Friedberg?

  Good advice. Yeah, I just, the biggest surprise to me was this guy's got a diary. I just, I don't know anyone that has a diary. I've never heard of this. So anyway, that was shocking. Besides that, I've, I have no view on what's gonna happen with the case or, or the judge will do.

• 34:28Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I have no comment on the case either. I think it's weird that Polly Market hasn't budged even as all of this discovery has been published. It's effectively at 42 or 43% that Elon wins. So, one of the friends in our group chat said, what may just happen is that Elon technically wins and he's just credited back the $40 million. And so maybe that's what this poll is front-running. But on a totally separate note, I think, Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but this idea of just keep moving forward, don't ruminate, I think is very good general life advice for everybody to follow.

• 35:06Jason Calacanis?

  The modern day therapy industrial complex and the medication industrial complex, I believe, is ruining people's lives. Well, it does pivot around rumination. Yes. That is the gateway drug to all these things. Yep. Talk about your problems. You know, when these people go to therapy, you ever hear these people, Howard Stern's like, I've been in therapy with the same person two or three days a week for 40 years? I'm like, okay, what's the incentive for the therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an hour? There is none. Then they lose a revenue stream, they lose a customer. It's all a giant fucking fraud. Sax, in terms of this case.

• 35:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I wouldn't go that far. I do think that there's a lot of value in kind of untying some of these Gordian knots that people have because of how they grew up. But there's a difference between that and being specific and just randomly ruminating, because I don't think there's a lot of productive.

• 35:53Jason Calacanis?

  If you've got an acute. Issue like in trauma in your life? Yeah, sure. Unpack it, figure it out. I'm just talking about this never ending self-improvement, you know, ruminating thing. But getting back on topic here, Sax, what's the, and we're talking about a jury, I believe in Oakland.

• 36:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, but it's a bench trial. This is important. It's a bench trial where the jury is advisory in capacity. But ultimately, that judge, she will make the final call.

• 36:22Jason Calacanis?

  And she'll do the damages. And so is this a case, Sax, of like, we've got a Bay Area jury judge, and we've got Elon, who's considered, you know, a bit right wing, and people don't all agree in that area in terms of his politics. And then you have this Sam Altman New Yorker story, and people finding out that so many different people feel they got screwed by him. You put these two things together, it's impossible to handicap where this turns out. Sax, your thoughts?

• 36:53David Sacks?

  Well, yeah, I don't think this is about politics. I mean, I guess you could argue that what Elon is seeking, which is to protect the charity, is if anything, a left coded sort of principle.

• 37:05Jason Calacanis?

  Sure.

• 37:06David Sacks?

  Although I don't really think it's left versus right. Look, I don't want to take sides on this trial. I'm just watching like everyone else. The last time I weighed in on some Elon litigation, I got deposed for six hours. Remember that? Because they just assumed that somehow I know something.

• 37:20Jason Calacanis?

  Right.

• 37:21David Sacks?

  I've never talked to Elon about the case. I don't know anything about it.

• 37:24Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah.

• 37:25David Sacks?

  I'm gonna see what happens like everyone else. Now, one thing I will say, having just read some of the coverage, is that apparently, the company at some point did offer Elon shares in the company, but he thought that there was something kind of icky about it. Do you remember this?

• 37:44Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 37:45David Sacks?

  Because at one point, I said on our show, when this dispute started happening before it became a court case, I said, look, if OpenAI at a certain point decided they had the wrong structure, they should have just gone and done a make right with Elon, and he should have been a shareholder on the cap table. What I didn't know is that apparently, they did try to do something like that. But Elon turned it down because he did want the entity to remain a charitable entity.

• 38:12Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 38:12David Sacks?

  You see what I mean?

• 38:13Jason Calacanis?

  He had a principled view of it, according to the reports, and was like, no, we're trying to save humanity, and then you're giving this keys to the kingdom to Microsoft. That's all come out. And I also have not talking to Elon about any of this. But my guess is, like most of these things, there'll be some sort of settlement or something here, but maybe he takes it to the mat, who knows? Judge Rogers, who's doing this, 61-year-old Obama appointee. Politics has played a role, Sax, they have had to tell the jury, like, however you feel about these individuals politically, whatever, please put that aside. But of note is that she oversaw the Epic Games versus Apple trial, where apps were

• 38:53Jason Calacanis?

  exclusively ruled in favor of Apple with some caveats, that they don't have a monopoly, et cetera, et cetera. So this is going to be a really interesting one. I think the worst-case scenario is OpenAI, for OpenAI, is they have to unravel this somehow, and that would delay the IPO, that would cause chaos in shareholders, and I guess the best case is some sort of settlement. And if Elon put the first 40 or 50 million dollars in, he's due 10, 20, 30% of the company after dilution. All right, let's keep moving through the docket, lots more to discuss, and good luck to everybody in their lawsuit, and those of you betting on the market.

• 39:34Jason Calacanis?

  All In Summit, selling out fast, our fifth edition, Los Angeles, September 13th to 15th. Go to allin.com/events, and speakers are going to be top tier. Apparently, Freeberg is having this as his major creative outlet. I heard some back-channel Chamath today, that he's going to be doing Broadway musical illusionist. I got a tap dancing situation. He's literally going full-on entertainer. This is going to be vaudeville, Sax, wrapped up. He's just going to take it to a whole new level. Musical numbers. Like Nathan Lane? I think, if you're coding that it's going to be his big gay summit, yes, it could be a big gay summit.

• 40:19Jason Calacanis?

  Might be our last year in LA, guys. What?

• 40:23Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Might be, is.

• 40:24David Friedberg?

  Might be.

• 40:24Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, everybody wants to go to Vegas. Apparently, roll those bones, baby. Can you imagine leaving the summit for lunch and going and playing craps, Jamar? We get a fresh shooter in there?

• 40:37Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yes, I can. Yes, I can. Yes, I can imagine.

• 40:39Jason Calacanis?

  I got some bricks. Oh, I got some bricks right here. Let's go. Yum, yum.

• 40:44David Friedberg?

  That way Sax can come.

• 40:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, Sax is like, I'm never setting for California, but I will.

• 40:50David Friedberg?

  So are you coming to our, you know, we're doing a couple of live events. Are you coming to them?

• 40:54David Sacks?

  Liquidity or something different?

• 40:56David Friedberg?

  Liquidity and then there's the, the all in summit happens in September?

• 40:59David Sacks?

  Yeah, I'm gonna do those too.

• 41:00Jason Calacanis?

  All right, big tech smashed their earnings on Thursday. Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta all reported. I don't know why they do this on the same night, folks, but they do. And performance was spectacular. It was great. However, the CapEx announcements were really the story here. Let me just cue this up and show the chart. Seven hundred and twenty-five billion dollars in CapEx guidance in 2026 from but four companies, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta. Amazon leading the pack with 200 billion, 190 billion each for Microsoft and Google, 145 billion for Meta. You add Grok, you add OpenAI and some other players

• 41:45Jason Calacanis?

  to these plans and we haven't heard from the new Apple CEO yet, but he's going to be taking over and he's going to have some plans here, I'm sure. We are going to see the large, a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars in build out over the next year. I don't know if this is even possible. But this is all being driven by AI and cloud computing, Google Cloud, which includes the Google Suite, that grew 63% year on year. Let that number sink in. 63% on 20 billion in revenue. That's in a quarter. Microsoft Cloud, that includes Azure, Windows Server, SQL Server. They bundled some things together there to get the number to go up. That grew 30% on 34.7 billion in revenue.

• 42:27Jason Calacanis?

  Amazon Web Services, the original cloud, that grew 28% on 37.6 billion in revenue. That's a bit of a pure play, just counts Amazon's Web Services. Obviously, these are all moving to Neo Clouds. These are all serving AI jobs and tokens now. They have a massive customer base and the customers from the smallest startups all the way to the biggest frontier models cannot get enough compute and it is going to the bottom line. But this is shrinking Chamath's cash flow massively. These were free cash flow machines, the largest money printing machines in the history of humanity. But they are giving up on free cash flow, stock buybacks and dividends. And the focus on those three to invest in infrastructure.

• 43:12Jason Calacanis?

  Amazon's free cash flow down 97%, Google, Microsoft and Meta down 12%, 12% and 8% respectively. Your thoughts on this free cash flow, the end of the free cash flow deluge? And the massive, massive investment we're seeing in CapEx, Chamath?

• 43:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I think we're seeing a very important structural shift in the capital markets. I think the last 20 or 30 years, well, 20 years, it's been that the Mag 7 just kind of ran away with it. That these big companies got bigger and bigger and it absorbed all of these investment dollars. And the biggest reason was that it had these very asset light business models, right? You just built some more software and it just has all this leverage and it all just kind of worked. Except maybe for Amazon because they needed physical infrastructure for warehouses and delivery and whatnot. But by and large, it was a very asset light investment cycle. Now, all of a sudden, the pendulum is swinging violently in the other direction.

• 44:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And there's something that I think people misunderstand, which is as it moves back to these asset heavy infrastructure investments.

• 44:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  The hyperscalers are signing checks that, I mean, I suspect their body can cash, but there's a world in which they can't. I'll give you an example. You know, when Microsoft convinced the owners of Three Mile Island to turn their nuclear site back on, do you know what their forward purchase agreement was? It was for more than 2X the prevailing spot rate for energy, more than 2X. The problem is, that's not for an enormous percentage of their overall energy needs. So if you play that out and you think these five or six companies, all of a sudden, are not just spending, Jason, 700 billion a year of CapEx, which they are,

• 45:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  but then from an operating cash flow, they're going to be spending 2X the prevailing spot rate because they just want guaranteed demand into the future. Where's all this cash going to go? It's not going to go to the shareholder and it's not going to stay on the balance sheet. These companies will now get levered, they're going to get highly sophisticated around the financial engineering, they'll have more debt, they'll have all kinds of different vehicles, and term loans, and revolvers, and all of this stuff. And so they're going to look like this big, bulky industrial business in five years. And I'm not sure that there's a good valuation case to be made at that point.

• 45:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And so I think it may be simpler, and this is what I tweeted, to just follow the dollars. Like, a trillion dollars a year going out of the hyperscalers? Where is it going? Just follow those dollars and buy those companies, because those companies are already underpriced.

• 46:03Jason Calacanis?

  This is obviously reminiscent of something we all experienced. Nick, can you pull up the Cisco chart I just sent you and put it at max? We had a massive build out of the infrastructure of the internet in the late 1990s and into 2000. And what that caused was, a lot of aggressive companies to do massive amounts of spending, a lot of retail investors to embrace these stocks, like we're seeing with people trying to get into these private companies. And Sax, look at the 2000 peak of Cisco. This is the most extraordinary chart ever. It took them 25 years to get back to that peak. And they had a lost two decades. And we had a massive amount of fiber that wound up getting bought. We talked about that a couple of years ago on the program.

• 46:47Jason Calacanis?

  But there's something for you to build off of here when you look at this massive infrastructure. You think it's going to be Cisco Systems all over again, WorldCom, et cetera?

• 46:55David Sacks?

  No, I really don't. The issue we had in 2000 was dark fiber. You had all this infrastructure being built out and it wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs. Today, as you know, Brad Gerson likes to say. So what's driving the capex now is the voracious demand for compute, for tokens. And the demand is now pulling forward this additional investment in infrastructure. So I think what's happened here is that the bull thesis for AI just got validated in a single afternoon. I mean, again, you got Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud,

• 47:34David Sacks?

  Amazon AWS, Meta, they're all basically exceeding expectations, exceeding guidance in terms of where their cloud revenue would be. And therefore, how much they're going to reinvest in capex. This year, I think we were supposed to have 660 billion of hyperscaler capex up from 350 last year. I think there's now the new estimate is it's going to be over 700. So this is, you know, again, it's more than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwind to GDP. There's another article saying that I think in the last quarter. AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the way, this is just the capex part. This is the physical infrastructure. This is not the economic impact of the tokens that are generated inside the token factory. This is the building of the factories.

• 48:19David Sacks?

  How do those tokens get used? Like we're seeing, they're being used not just to do research or to answer questions, but to create code. And so we're seeing this explosion of productivity in software development. And we're seeing an explosion of bespoke software being created. And that's going to accelerate every part of the economy, every business that now wants to get code will be. Able to get code for the first time before they couldn't even hire the engineers. They needed to generate it. Now they will be able to. So that is a huge unlock of productivity across the economy. Then you're getting into these new use cases like the the co-working use cases and agents. Right? So the the workflow automations that are happening.

• 49:02David Sacks?

  It's still early. I don't believe that this is going to replace humans. We had that. In the past week, we had that crazy case of an agent deleting a production database in nine seconds.

• 49:11Speaker 05

  So great.

• 49:12David Sacks?

  Because of a bug. Look, what that said to me is that. It's not that agents aren't valuable. They are valuable, but they have to be supervised. You know, this idea that you're just going to be able to like automate all the jobs away. It is a massive amount of hand waving over the real technical problems and issues. The agents have to be supervised. Someone has to be accountable. It's not going to be the CEO. The CEO doesn't want to be accountable for thousands of agents. You need people.

• 49:38Speaker 05

  Despite what Jack Block said.

• 49:40David Sacks?

  Yeah, you're still going to need.

• 49:41Speaker 05

  Direct reports is a great like goal, but it's not realistic. Yeah.

• 49:46David Sacks?

  You need IT people who are savvy, who can supervise this and make sure it's working. They have to be accountable to the CEO. Someone has to drive the productivity. It's like Ballaji always said, AI is not end to end as middle to middle. You have to have someone to do the prompting and you have to have someone to do the validating. And I would add the supervision and accountability. So anyway, the larger point, though, is I'm speaking to the fact that I don't think there's going to be this huge job loss associated with this productivity boom that we're going to get. And in fact, I think what's actually happening now is that. AI is becoming synonymous with the American economy. I mean, the fact that it's generating 75% of GDP, you have this. Capex explosion, this energy explosion that feeds it.

• 50:28David Sacks?

  And again, just the beginning of the applications that are being unleashed. By these new token factories, I think it's all a very, very positive thing. And all these doomers who are trying to throw a wet blanket on it or constantly scaring the daylights out of people. I mean, what do they want the American economy to do? Just to stop? I mean, they just don't want any progress? I mean, like, again, you know, when you talk about stopping AI or halting AI progress, what you're really doing is stopping the American economy now. You're basically saying you don't want economic growth. AI is now synonymous with the growth of the American economy. And if there's no economic growth, there's not going to be money to pay for all the social programs. There's not going to be money to pay down the national debt.

• 51:11David Sacks?

  There's not going to be money to basically build up our national defense. All these things we want to spend money on. We have to have a vibrant economy, and that is now synonymous with AI. So I know that AI may not be popular. I see those polls, but having a strong economy is popular. And I believe that those things are now synonymous.

• 51:29Jason Calacanis?

  It's almost like there was some architect or czar who set up the chessboard in the first year of this to make sure that it was ultra-competitive.

• 51:37David Sacks?

  You know, President Trump set the table on this.

• 51:39Jason Calacanis?

  Absolutely, with some good advice, I think, maybe. Friedberg, your thoughts?

• 51:43David Sacks?

  It's always good to have good advisors.

• 51:45Jason Calacanis?

  Always good to have good advisors, absolutely, absolutely.

• 51:47David Sacks?

  No, but look, I've said it before, the president just wants America to win.

• 51:50Jason Calacanis?

  Literally, there are people who, if we were looking at this, you know, I don't know, 100 years ago, it'd be like people are like, yeah, you know what? We shouldn't build the highway system where we have built the highway system. Let's stop. Let's stop building the highways.

• 52:02David Friedberg?

  Oh, the highway system was funded by the federal government. There was no competition. It was the most expensive, on a, on a inflation-adjusted basis. I think it was the most expensive project in US history.

• 52:14Jason Calacanis?

  And the railroads before that, like, you can't stop these things. They have to keep going. It's an interesting point, you know? There is so much demand for the resource of tokens of intelligence, Freeberg, and it's quite different than the fiber situation, as Sax correctly points out, where we built all this, but we didn't actually have an application. Here, the application is pretty, um, pretty well-known. And you've got a large number of people in businesses who are trying to vibe code their way to success, trying to push this stuff. And we had an interesting story referenced earlier in the show. Where Claude ate somebody's homework. This is the nightmare of all nightmares. Somebody was vibe coding. It was the founder of Pocket OS.

• 52:58Jason Calacanis?

  Apparently they make software for rental car companies. He was using Opus 4.6 through Cursor's AI platform, their coding platform. And, you know, which is like the most expensive tier. And he said he configured it with enough safety rules. But the agent was working on a routine task. They saw some sort of credentialing mismatch and they decided to fix the mismatch by deleting a railway volume without user confirmation. And they pushed the code from a repo to a live app and they deleted everything, including the backups. Literally a scene from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of Son of Anton. Hilarious. You gave your AI permission to overwrite code in the internal file system? Were you gonna tell me about this?

• 53:43Speaker 07

  No. I thought that was the company policy these days.

• 53:47Jason Calacanis?

  Okay. Well, your AI just failed ethically.

• 53:51Speaker 07

  That's unclear. It's possible that Son of Anton decided that the most efficient way to get rid of all the bugs was to get rid of all the software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial neural nets are sort of a black box. So we'll never know for sure.

• 54:06Jason Calacanis?

  How did they get that so right, Snacks? Five or six years ago, artificial neural networks are a black box. So I guess we'll never know. But technically it was correct. Freeberg, when you blow up a hollow system with your vibe coding, which you were absolutely showing off in front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago about how much code you're pushing, who are you gonna blame? You gonna take responsibility yourself? Are you gonna blame Claude or Cursor? Who are you gonna blame when you blow up the entire stack over at Ohalo? Who are you blaming? Yeah, blame Dario. You blame Dario? Okay, that's what I thought. That's the correct answer. Correct answer. Blame Dario. He's the one who says it's a doomsday machine. Come on the prod anytime, Dario. 17 times.

• 54:49Jason Calacanis?

  I would have invited the guy like 17 times. He is totally going to be, he wants nothing to do with this podcast.

• 54:57David Sacks?

  Actually, let me speak to that. So I think, I think that there's maybe a misperception that this error occurred because of, you know, quote unquote, AI scheming.

• 55:09David Sacks?

  Like kind of in that video that the AI decided that the best way to get rid of bugs is to basically eliminate the code base. This is kind of like the, you know, AI is going to turn the world into paperclips type thing where somehow it'll like mis scheme. That's not really what happened here. This is a case of just a, of old fashioned bugs occurring at an edge case. You know, you've got the fact that this API was not designed for permissioned usage. You've got the fact that a credential was left kind of lying around, probably it should not be. There was kind of like a perfect storm that caused the AI to do something or the agent to do something I didn't quite understand it was, what it was doing. I think that if there is a systemic problem here, rather than just kind of a, like a random edge case.

• 55:52David Sacks?

  It's that AI still doesn't know what it doesn't know. You know, like a human would stop before deleting a production database and just say, oh, I'm about to do something like really serious, really destructive. Am I sure I want to do this, you know? And a human would have stopped and said, oh, wait a second, like I need to be more confident in what I'm doing before I take that action. And AI still has this issue where again, it can be kind of overconfident. This is where like the hallucinations come from. Is it doesn't know when it should have a low confidence in its output, right? But this is why it has to be supervised, you know, the longer the time horizon for a task, the more likely it is to go off the rails.

• 56:34Jason Calacanis?

  It'll drift.

• 56:35David Sacks?

  And adrift, exactly. And this is why I think people are starting to realize that this idea of eliminating all software developers was the peak of inflated expectations.

• 56:45Jason Calacanis?

  Yes.

• 56:45David Sacks?

  Right? There was actually a really good tweet on this by Aaron Levy, who's got the right take on this. Aaron retweeted Matthew Iglesias, who sort of sardonically tweeted that five months in, I think I've decided I don't want to vibe code. I want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistants to make more, better, cheaper software products that they sell to me for money.

• 57:08Jason Calacanis?

  Just lower your prices. Don't make me vibe code is the translation.

• 57:12David Sacks?

  Yeah. I mean, I think like rare wind for, for Matt Iglesias there. Anyway, Aaron Levy then says, Agentic coding is a huge boon for software developers that want to get more done. And it's fantastic for anyone curious to learn how to start coding. What it's less great for is casually building complex software that you have to maintain on an ongoing basis and take all the risk for. Upgrades, maintenance, keeping up to date with latest security issues, you know, the bugs, cyber. Those are taxes on most knowledge workers who aren't familiar with the system.

• 57:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's not a tax, it's a huge risk.

• 57:47David Sacks?

  Yes, as a risk has to be managed.

• 57:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's a risk. People will get fired because there will be some public companies where some goofball tries to vibe code their way out of something and they're going to torch the enterprise value. It's going to be glorious to watch because we're all going to laugh and realize that was stupid and should never have happened in the first place.

• 58:04Jason Calacanis?

  Yeah, I mean, it's, there is a chance that this improves to the point, passes trial of disillusionment and becomes super productive. And you'll be able to get an agent to do reasonable things without deleting your data set. But we have a way to go. Here is your, you know, this is the tech adoption chart. Basically, you got a technology gets triggered, you have the trial, you have this peak of inflated expectations. You go into the trial of disillusionment and then the slope of enlightenment and eventually it becomes de rigueur and it's an opportunity. Hey, Friedberg, you have become Reddit True Tide Curious. You have, and also.

• 58:42Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Tell me, tell me about Reddit, Friedberg, because I want it. I want to get on it. I want to use it and I need you to tell Nat that it's okay for me to take it.

• 58:52Jason Calacanis?

  I have a friend who has some advice as well.

• 58:54David Friedberg?

  Friedberg. The coverage is coming out of this phase three clinical trial data release that Lilly put out last month. So everyone's going crazy over the data, which continues to show pretty amazing results. So unlike Terzepatide, which is kind of Lilly's main.

• 59:14David Friedberg?

  Product today, which is a dual agonist. It's got two peptides in it that bind to different receptors. The GLP-1, the GIP receptor. This other one now also binds to glucagon, which is a third receptor. And that glucagon receptor binding peptide causes the cells to increase their metabolism, which actually accelerates fat energy consumption over what would typically be muscle energy consumption. It's more likely to burn up fat early on, which causes more quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle loss. And some of the other data that's now coming out shows non-HDL cholesterol down 27%, triglycerides down 41%.

• 59:57David Friedberg?

  Liver fat down 80%? 80% reduction of liver fat. A1C drops from 7.9% to 6% in 40 weeks, which is amazing, by the way. If you're diabetic and your A1C drops that much in a couple of months, it's literally a life-saving product. The average user in this phase three trial saw their weight decline from 214 pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's compared to six pounds on placebo in 40 weeks. And, you know, modest side effects. 20% people felt more nauseous than the people that were on the placebo. There's a lot of other separate studies that are being done now that are showing significant reductions in inflammatory signaling molecules.

• 1:00:42David Friedberg?

  So systemic signaling of like, hey, cells are in distress, triggers this kind of inflammatory process that can have a lot of other damage to your body, can accelerate aging. And so one of the other conversations is that retinotrite might actually be kind of a de-aging drug as well. Hercules, Hercules. You know, and a lot of the studies, by the way, are done on the very high dose, 12-milligram dose, but you could probably get this thing dosed down to 2-milligrams and still see a lot of the anti-inflammatory maintenance and other benefits. I'm no doctor, but people are going nuts over this being more widely useful than just for clinical obesity or type 1 or type 2 diabetes. When's the projected date?

• 1:01:27Chamath Palihapitiya?

  2027, mid 27.

• 1:01:28David Friedberg?

  That's what they're saying. Could happen sooner. I mean, the data's in, you know, the FDA will take their time to evaluate it, but I think, given the way this is all looking. Could happen sooner, could happen sometime later this year.

• 1:01:41Jason Calacanis?

  Swim Chamath, Swim said it's incredible and that it's living up to the hype in their experience.

• 1:01:50David Friedberg?

  Who?

• 1:01:51Jason Calacanis?

  Swim.

• 1:01:52David Friedberg?

  What is that?

• 1:01:52Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What is that?

• 1:01:53Jason Calacanis?

  Someone who isn't me, Swim.

• 1:01:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Oh.

• 1:01:55Jason Calacanis?

  This is a Reddit term. Someone who isn't me, said, who has a guy, Swim has a guy, and has cycled on Reddit TruTide and does pushups and says muscle gain has been spectacular, no muscle loss and a lowering of fat.

• 1:02:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  If you go on X and you just search up Reda,

• 1:02:17Jason Calacanis?

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:02:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's like incredible. You see these like 65-year-old guys that go from a dad bod to looking like an incredibly ripped athlete in weeks and I, I mean, I'm shocked. And for me, I don't need that help per se, but my liver health is important to me, my cardiac health, because I'm South Asian, and it just looks like a wonder drug. I can't wait.

• 1:02:41David Friedberg?

  When you starve your body, when you turn off the appetite, which is the GLP-1 agonist function, normally your body goes into this kind of mode of starvation and you have this process by which your body tries to generate energy from your existing cells. And because muscle is much denser than fat, you can have a favoring of muscle tissue being kind of broken up over fat tissue. But what this new agonist, this glucagon agonist they put into this retitrutide, is it favors fat burning over muscle burning. And so that actually can drive short-term use at low dose for people to cut weight and maintain muscle and get ripped. And so that's why a lot of people in the kind of fitness community are talking about,

• 1:03:24David Friedberg?

  hey, I want to get access to this and get on it for a while. So you'll see a lot more hype probably in that community as well as the, all the health effects.

• 1:03:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It just feels like we're about to have. An absolute avalanche of peptides to choose from.

• 1:03:36David Friedberg?

  On November of 2025, Lilly cut a deal with the Trump administration. I saw this to drop the price on Terzepotide pretty significantly. I think it's like 50 bucks on Medicare.

• 1:03:45Chamath Palihapitiya?

  50 bucks for Medicare, yeah.

• 1:03:46David Friedberg?

  Yeah, which is a pretty cheap price point, but it starts to make sense. As you think about the portfolio of Lilly products, you get Terzepotide for 50 bucks, but if you want to upgrade, get the RetoTrutide, that's the high premium product, and that's where they're going to start to make all this money.

• 1:03:59Jason Calacanis?

  That'll be the Mercedes to the Honda.

• 1:04:00David Friedberg?

  Because as I'm sure if I'm Lilly and I'm sitting there and I'm looking at this data coming out, I'm like, my God, people will pay for this. And that starts to become sort of like the upgrade to the BMW or the Model S Plaid, if you will.

• 1:04:10Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Yeah, the Terzepotide is like the one-bedroom messy-bed hotel room.

• 1:04:15Jason Calacanis?

  And the other one's the suite.

• 1:04:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And RetoTrutide is like the two-bedroom suite.

• 1:04:20Jason Calacanis?

  You can also, by the way, you guys know I'm a spokesman for Ro, they also have the Wegovy pill, ro.co/twist to get your.

• 1:04:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Wait, are you a paid spokesman?

• 1:04:32Jason Calacanis?

  What are you talking about?

• 1:04:33Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Are you a paid? What are you talking about?

• 1:04:35Jason Calacanis?

  I'm being, it's me, Charles Barkley and Serena Williams are all spokesperson for Ro.

• 1:04:42David Friedberg?

  And then you come over on All In and you start promoting that.

• 1:04:44Jason Calacanis?

  No, no, no, no. Trust me, we'll get one of those as well. We'll get a ro.co sponsorship here.

• 1:04:49Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What was the Ro pill that you had me get? What was it called?

• 1:04:51Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, Sparks.

• 1:04:52David Friedberg?

  Sparks.

• 1:04:53Jason Calacanis?

  Do you take it?

• 1:04:54Chamath Palihapitiya?

  I have taken it and now.

• 1:04:56Jason Calacanis?

  Amore, please.

• 1:04:58Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no.

• 1:04:59Jason Calacanis?

  And maybe just a half of a lousy.

• 1:05:00David Friedberg?

  Okay, I want to hear the story. I want to hear the story. Go.

• 1:05:02Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's so out of control.

• 1:05:03Jason Calacanis?

  It is out of control. I told you, I told you.

• 1:05:06Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So then what happens is Nat and I are like, you can't, you can't just randomly use it. It's scheduled. We discuss it. We put it on the calendar.

• 1:05:12Jason Calacanis?

  We need a plan.

• 1:05:13Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You need a plan.

• 1:05:14Jason Calacanis?

  You need a plan. Can't go in with the Sparks.

• 1:05:16Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Otherwise it's too much. You just can't randomly take it.

• 1:05:19David Friedberg?

  What do you mean?

• 1:05:20Jason Calacanis?

  It's gonna be a sesh.

• 1:05:22Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's a whole thing, man. It's like, I don't have the energy for that anymore.

• 1:05:25Jason Calacanis?

  It's an extended session. You, you have to be well rested. Don't do this at 1 a.m. This is like a 10 p.m. thing.

• 1:05:31Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, no, no. This is like, no, this is more like, this is more like.

• 1:05:33Jason Calacanis?

  The afternoon. On vacation.

• 1:05:34Chamath Palihapitiya?

  You know, like 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., you know, to noon, you know, you gotta really, you gotta really schedule it.

• 1:05:42Jason Calacanis?

  Plan it out. Schedule it. No kids around.

• 1:05:44Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Otherwise it's unfair to her.

• 1:05:46Jason Calacanis?

  House gotta be empty.

• 1:05:47Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Otherwise it's unfair to her and it's just, it's a lot.

• 1:05:49Jason Calacanis?

  It's a, it's a, it's a big commitment, literally.

• 1:05:52David Friedberg?

  You, you look embarrassed, Timo. Do you feel embarrassed talking about it?

• 1:05:55Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's just a lot, man. It's like, it's a lot to handle. It's a lot.

• 1:06:00Jason Calacanis?

  If you want to get the extra 20% in your performance.

• 1:06:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's a lot, bro.

• 1:06:04Jason Calacanis?

  It's a lot. It's basically going into overtime. It's double overtime.

• 1:06:07Chamath Palihapitiya?

  What happened was, I was like, oh, what is this thing? Jason's like, dude, you must get it. You must get it. So we got it. We tried it and we were like, what the was that? And so then I've been trying to bleed the pills out. So I gave some to Stan Tang. I'm like, Stanley, you try it.

• 1:06:22Jason Calacanis?

  Literally, he's dealing them like cards.

• 1:06:25Chamath Palihapitiya?

  But when we're having poker dinner, I'm like, does anybody want to try these things? But these rolls, what is it? Ro Sparks?

• 1:06:30Jason Calacanis?

  Ro Sparks. Shout out to my friends out there. All right, let's keep moving here. Friedberg, guys, Friedberg had his own personal Super Bowl. You see me getting ready for next playoff season. I get my courtside. Friedberg had the equivalent, Sax. He went to the Supreme Court in order to hear them talk about chemicals. This was a big deal for him. The Supreme Court coming together. Did you wear a? Yes, the Monsanto trial happened in the Supreme Court and he went, he got courtside. He went to the Supreme Court and listened in the building.

• 1:07:03David Friedberg?

  Have you guys ever seen a live Supreme Court hearing?

• 1:07:05Chamath Palihapitiya?

  No, I'd love to though. I'd love to.

• 1:07:07David Friedberg?

  Sax, have you been?

• 1:07:08David Sacks?

  No, I haven't actually.

• 1:07:09David Friedberg?

  I mean, honest, honestly, I think it was one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had. There was a massive protest out front. We went through the marshal's office to get in and that building, you walk in, it's like sacred, it's all marble. It's, you're not allowed to talk. You have to be super quiet when you're in the building. Like they keep going, shh, shh, shh, like you're in some quiet library. It's like people treat it with this level of kind of sanctity and respect. And they're like, there is no politics here. There is no bullshitting. There is no freedom of speech. This is the court. When you come into this court, the justices tell you how you will speak, how you will behave, what you will do, and you will not speak unless spoken to. You put all your stuff in a locker. You go up the stairs, you go into the courtroom and the courtroom, it's just so amazing being in there.

• 1:07:54David Friedberg?

  They have this amazing marble frieze above the justices that has some of the great people of human history. Moses and these kind of amazing historical figures and then below them are the nine justices. And the court case, if you guys haven't watched the case, you can listen to them, I think, online.

• 1:08:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Hold on, hold on, wait, wait, wait. I have a question. So does Roberts sit in the middle because he's the chief?

• 1:08:14David Friedberg?

  Yes.

• 1:08:15Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And then do all of the right justices sit on the right?

• 1:08:18David Friedberg?

  No, they're mixed. So they're, I think, I don't know, I don't know the exact seating, but they're mixed.

• 1:08:22David Sacks?

  It's probably based on appointments to the court.

• 1:08:25David Friedberg?

  Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right. And then, so yeah, that's right. And then it kind of goes out from the middle with Roberts in the middle. Roberts occasionally will name the justices and say, hey, do you have a question? Do you have a question? If no one's talking, but otherwise the justices will jump in with their questions when they want. And they'll ask, now, honest to God, watching this is like watching LeBron James play basketball. These lawyers are so mind-blowingly impressive on both sides. That you would just like sit there and I was like in awe. It was so, I, I felt like my energy was completely sapped from me at the end of this process. Because you are just so engaged and so caught into the way that these guys are thinking and talking.

• 1:09:04Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Did you take a rose sparks? You take a rose sparks when you were there?

• 1:09:06David Friedberg?

  No. And if you're familiar, if you're familiar enough with the case. Or the case history or the law that's being debated. Because again, when, when you get to the Supreme Court, you never debate the case. What you're debating is the legal interpretation of the, the decisions that were made on the case. And so is this constitutional? How do you interpret this particular act, this law, this federal law? What's the right way to think about it? So you don't actually talk about the case. You talk about the interpretation of American law. Of our laws, of the constitution.

• 1:09:36David Sacks?

  You're saying the facts have already been determined.

• 1:09:38David Friedberg?

  That's right.

• 1:09:39David Sacks?

  Right? At a lower court. There's questions of fact and questions of law. The facts have already been determined by the lower court. It's just, Supreme Court is ruling on questions of law.

• 1:09:47David Friedberg?

  That's right. And so they have a full briefing with the full history of the case. And remember, they only hear two cases a day. So they're one hour each for each hearing. So you go in and they only do it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday on the last two weeks, and they only hear cases from October to April. There's only a handful of cases that are selected.

• 1:10:03Chamath Palihapitiya?

  Wow. So you're really on a shot clock then to make your case.

• 1:10:05David Friedberg?

  You're on a shot clock and you only have, and it's 30 minutes aside, and then the justices will ask question.

• 1:10:09Chamath Palihapitiya?

  So this was Monsanto and Roundup, right? So what was the law that was being debated?

• 1:10:14David Friedberg?

  For years, the regulatory body, the EPA, sets the label for pesticides. Does this cause cancer or not? What are the warnings? This can be damaging for birth defects, pregnancy, all the things that we're all used to seeing on labels. When you buy a product, a chemical product. And the EPA and their regulatory authority determined that Roundup does not cause cancer. When you sell a pesticide, you first have to register it with the EPA, get it approved. Then the EPA gives you a label. And the label is written by the EPA. It says exactly what you're supposed to say. And in this case, it said, all this stuff doesn't say cancer because they determined it does not cause cancer. And I'm not going to debate whether or not it causes cancer, but that's the case that was made is that the EPA is the regulatory body under a federal act called FIFRA, Fungicide,

• 1:10:59David Friedberg?

  Insecticide, or Denicide Act. And that's where the EPA is given the regulatory authority to put the label on these products. And all of the cases that have been lost have been state failure to warn cases. To date, Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, has paid out $10 billion in these lawsuits. And they have reserved $10 billion on their balance sheet. They have 90,000 cases still outstanding in the courts. 90,000. And so this one case got kind of appealed up to the Supreme Court. Last year, the White House Solicitor General, and if the Solicitor General steps up and asks the Supreme Court to take a case, it's more likely the case gets taken. So the White House said, please take this case. We need to have federal preemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set

• 1:11:44David Friedberg?

  the label. Because all of the cases that have been lost and that are being adjudicated are in state courts where the state has a law, like in California, called a failure to warn law, which means if a manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer. And so the lawyers have been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product caused cancer and didn't warn the consumer. And they've been winning cases, they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that this has now become a multi-deca-billion-dollar problem. And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't cause cancer and they have federal preemption. So the EPA has the right to determine. So that's the one argument. But then, when the other attorney came up, this guy was like, literally like watching LeBron

• 1:12:29David Friedberg?

  James. And so, going in, we were like, oh, 6-3, Bayer is gonna win. And then the other guy comes up, and he was like, well, hey, you guys overturned the Chevron doctrine last year. You guys remember that case? Yeah. Where basically, when the Chevron doctrine got overturned, it basically said that no longer does the federal agency get to decide. It has to be a direct reading of the law. Dun, dun, dun. It's not, dun, dun, dun. So now, so he's saying like, the states should have a right to read the law themselves. They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA. And that's what this will come down to. So at the end of it, we were like, oh my god, this could be a 50-50 coin flip, 5-4 either way. And going into it, we were kind of like, trying to say, hey, maybe this could be 6-3. So, honestly, the whole experience was incredible. The case is interesting.

• 1:13:11Chamath Palihapitiya?

  These are very complicated matters. How are these people able to make a fulsome argument? Like, one side gets 30 minutes, the other side gets 30 minutes, there's a little Q and A, and then you're done in an hour?

• 1:13:22David Friedberg?

  There's this whole art and science, and Sax, you're probably familiar with this, on how do you distill down a Supreme Court case in the briefing doc? Like, what is it you're petitioning around the court? And you're trying to distill it down to the exact legal interpretation you want the judges to rule on. Not all the other bullshit. And this is oral arguments, yes. Oral arguments, just a discussion. And then the judges jump in, and all they're doing is asking the lawyer questions. One lawyer at a time. The one side, and then the other side. And by the way, the Solicitor General came up in the middle and kind of made a few comments, and asked her some questions from the White House, and she sat down. And then the two sides kind of went back and forth. And they just, it's like 30 minutes Q and A each, on that one specific legal question. And Katanji Brown Jackson said, but what if, after the EPA issued the label, they found out information that it does cause

• 1:14:07David Friedberg?

  cancer? Shouldn't they update the label? And he's saying, well, no, they're not allowed to. They can only issue the label the EPA says. And he says also, and it's a criminal case, if they find out that it does cause cancer and they don't report it to the EPA. And then she's saying, well, what if the EPA doesn't act? And shouldn't the states have a right to protect their people? So those are the legal arguments, the discussions that are going on in all of this. And there's interesting implications, which is fundamentally, if the states get to interpret federal law and ignore federal regulatory bodies, it opens up a whole new can of worms. In terms of like, all the states can start to ignore federal regulatory bodies, like the EPA, or the FDA, or the USDA, or, and on and on and on. So the whole case has a whole bunch of really interesting implications wound up in it.

• 1:14:50David Friedberg?

  When you hear these guys, and they're just talking chumoth about that exact like interpretation of the law. And that's what this comes down to. It's not the actual case that matters.

• 1:14:58Jason Calacanis?

  And after the Saks, they go to oral arguments, and then they have like a private conference where they'll write their papers and give their final judgment, yeah?

• 1:15:07Jason Calacanis?

  Saks?

• 1:15:07David Sacks?

  Yeah, I think what happens is that, so I guess there's some discussion that happens behind closed doors, and they figure out where the majority is, and then the chief gets to assign who writes the opinion for the majority.

• 1:15:19Chamath Palihapitiya?

  In that meeting, nobody is allowed in, and in fact, you have a double door system. Where like, if anything needs to come in and out, you have to like, kind of like knock on the door, you're led into this antechamber, then...

• 1:15:29Jason Calacanis?

  Oh, is it airlock?

• 1:15:30Chamath Palihapitiya?

  It's an airlock. It's effectively, we, I had, I don't know if you were there, Jason, but we had Ted Cruz come to play in the poker game.

• 1:15:37Jason Calacanis?

  Uh, wasn't that...

• 1:15:38Chamath Palihapitiya?

  And Ted Cruz clerked for William Rehnquist. And if you want to have an incredible dinner, ask him about the Supreme Court and Bill Rehnquist. He's a real student of the Supreme Court, and it just makes the Supreme Court, Friedberg to your point, sound like the most incredible body that's ever been created. Anywhere.

• 1:15:58David Friedberg?

  By the way, more than the White House, more than the Capitol Building, more than any of these other big agencies, this place has, it's almost like being in England. It has these kind of ways that people operate, the, the, the security is so different. They kind of stand there in the court, and they all exchange places every 20 minutes. It's very coordinated. They're dressed very differently than any other security...

• 1:16:19Jason Calacanis?

  How many people are in the courtroom, listening?

• 1:16:20David Friedberg?

  Maybe like 150, I would say.

• 1:16:22Jason Calacanis?

  How do you get the tickets? Are they on StubHub or something?

• 1:16:24David Friedberg?

  So I think, I actually think everyone is a guest of a clerk or someone that works at the court. I don't think that it's like very publicly available to get in there.

• 1:16:30Jason Calacanis?

  You can't line up? There's no lineup?

• 1:16:32David Friedberg?

  There's, I don't know if there's a lineup, um, this was a connection through the...

• 1:16:36Jason Calacanis?

  I know for the Elon case...

• 1:16:36David Friedberg?

  We got in through the Chief Justice, um, he gave us the pass, but I think it was like very, um...

• 1:16:42Speaker 05

  I think at the Elon versus OpenAI case, there's you can line up and then the judge gave like 30 tickets to the press.

• 1:16:49David Sacks?

  That's not the Supreme Court.

• 1:16:51Speaker 05

  No, no, yeah, but I think there's a lineup for the Supreme Court as well. There's some public access that there.

• 1:16:55David Friedberg?

  It did not look like anyone from the public was in this court. Everyone is dressed respectfully. I mean, this court has an incredible amount of like,

• 1:17:04David Sacks?

  That's a super cool experience. Yeah, I would just say, enjoy it while you can. I mean, I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in the United States. A hundred percent. You know, at some point, we're going to have like 13 or 21 or some crazy number of justices up there.

• 1:17:21Speaker 05

  They should put it in an arena, Sax, and get jerseys and everybody show up with their jerseys.

• 1:17:26David Sacks?

  Of justices there. And so enjoy it while it's still in the current, in the current form it's in.

• 1:17:32Speaker 05

  Sax, can you imagine showing up with jerseys with the justices' names on them and like having sections and like somebody selling Cracker Jacks?

• 1:17:40David Friedberg?

  The Idiocracy version of the Supreme Court.

• 1:17:43Speaker 05

  Exactly.

• 1:17:45David Sacks?

  The popularity of the court really depends on whether it's issuing decisions that people agree with. That's what it comes down to. It's like, if you ask people whether they like the Supreme Court or not, it really just depends on whether they agree with the decisions that are coming out. As opposed to the process of the decisions and how well argued it is and all these things that you're pointing to. And actually, the court, I mean, I just checked the numbers. The court is relatively popular right now. I think that it got as low as 35% in the 2024 Gallup survey, but I think it's back up to, you know, like 44 to 50% favorability.

• 1:18:26David Sacks?

  Which for something that's involved in politics is relatively high, right? Like you look at Congress or any particular politician, they're going to be lower than that typically.

• 1:18:35David Friedberg?

  I just felt so assured of like the institution when I visited and saw these guys interact and behave and how they behave, the process. It was like, man, this, what an amazing country. Yeah.

• 1:18:48David Sacks?

  Well, the reason I say what I say is there was an interview with James Carville recently. Did you guys see this?

• 1:18:52David Friedberg?

  I saw that. I saw that.

• 1:18:53David Sacks?

  He said, look, when we get power, we're packing the court. So we're not even gonna, we're not gonna worry about it.

• 1:18:59David Friedberg?

  Yeah, he said get to 13, right? He said we're gonna make.

• 1:19:01David Sacks?

  Yeah, they're gonna go from nine to 13. And then they're gonna create some new states and all the rest of it. So that'll be that.

• 1:19:07Speaker 05

  Enjoy a while laughs.

• 1:19:09Jason Calacanis?

  Enjoy a while laughs. Uh, by the way.

• 1:19:12Chamath Palihapitiya?

  End on a high note.

• 1:19:13Jason Calacanis?

  Wait, yeah, it's the end of the empire. That'll be that. By the way, there is a Supreme Court. I was correct, there is an online ticketing lottery. So we can all sign up and you can get a four pack of tickets. I think they should make this, we should talk to Howard Lutnick. Maybe he can make this an auction and get a revenue stream for the US. We could sell like 10 of the tickets as courtside seats for 20 grand. Jason, you're exactly what they're trying to protect against happening at the Supreme. Exactly. Like, how can we monetize the Supreme Court? All right, everybody, that's it. That's the world's greatest podcast for you. For Chamath Palihopatia, David Friedberg and David Sacks. I am the world's greatest moderator. We'll see you next time.

• 1:19:53David Sacks?

  You're like the chief justice.

• 1:19:54Jason Calacanis?

  I'm like the chief justice of the all-in podcast.

• 1:19:58David Sacks?

  We'll let your winners ride.

• 1:20:01Jason Calacanis?

  Rain Man David Sacks.

• 1:20:06David Sacks?

  And it said, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Sacks.

• 1:20:10Speaker 05

  I'm the queen of Kino One.

• 1:20:19Speaker 05

  Besties are back. That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway, Sacks.

• 1:20:26Speaker 05

  Oh, man.

• 1:20:29Chamath Palihapitiya?

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

• 1:20:37Speaker 05

  What, you're the bee? What, you're a bee? What? We need to get merch. Besties are back.