SpaceX’s $2T Case, Nvidia’s Shock Selloff, America Turns on AI, Trump Pulls AI Order, Bond Crisis?

Key Takeaway

Ask the workers themselves what they want. Before implementing AI solutions in warehouses or transportation, survey the actual package sorters and drivers—not policymakers or pundits. If Amazon has 35-40% warehouse churn, that suggests workers might welcome change. Real solutions start with understanding whether people want these jobs preserved or transformed. Stop making decisions for others without their input.

Episode Overview

The All-In podcast discusses Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic to lead recursive self-improvement research, the implications of AI advancement, and debates around responsible AI deployment. The hosts explore concerns about AI's societal impact, competition with China, and the need to focus on end-user benefits rather than breathless coverage of model improvements.

Full Transcript

Transcript of SpaceX’s $2T Case, Nvidia’s Shock Selloff, America Turns on AI, Trump Pulls AI Order, Bond Crisis? from All-In Podcast. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. It's the All-in podcast episode 274. Sacks is out today, but we're very lucky to have Gavin Baker from Atrides Management joining us. The spicy takes must flow. must flow. must flow. Welcome back to the program, bestie Gavin. Thanks for having me. Always love it. It's been a huge week in tech. We can start with the SpaceX and OpenAI IPOs. We've got Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic, Nvidia crushing it. So many different to go, but I think we'll start with Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic.

Karpathy is only 39 years old. He's already a legend in the tech industry. If you don't know him, I believe he's also coming to Liquidity, Chamath. He's going to keynote on Monday morning. Oh, fantastic. fantastic. fantastic. I did not know. Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday. Day two, I think. He's keynoting. Okay. keynoting. Okay. keynoting. Okay. As is Gavin. Gavin will be there. Founding member of Gavin anchoring day two, as well. Excellent. Yeah, and this is Gavin's second appearance. Yeah. I look at those two bookmarks, Andrej Karpathy and Gavin Baker.

Yeah, you know. know. know. Liquidity pulls in the stars. Obviously, Andrej was a founding member of OpenAI. He led the self-driving team. Also, hold on. Gavin is going to help us judge the best ideas section, as well. Excellent. I don't know if you know that, Gavin, but you're a judge. You're going to be a judge. I'm a pretty thing, man. I'm easy. Yes. Karpathy also coined the term vibe coding. He recently built Auto Research. I think we talked about that here a bit. That's an open-source training tool.

It helps AI models improve themselves by running 5-minute experiments. That got over 82,000 stars on GitHub. He did that like as a weekend experiment, and all these civilians started building their own recursive LLMs. Really inspiring. And the Andrej Karpathy skills is a tool based on his set of principles for Claude code, and somebody just released that. And so, it's just pretty crazy when you think about it. He's going to be in charge of a new pre-training team at Anthropic. The focus, obviously, being recursive self-improvement. In other words, other words, other words, they're going to have Claude improve itself and they've already talked a little bit about AI improving AI over at Anthropic.

Chamath, what's your take on this? Is this? Is this? Is this super important in 2026? Obviously, Karpathy is super well respected. He's obviously, you know, one of the true talents in the space, but hey, we're in a different inning than we a we're in a different inning than we were say 10 years ago when he was at Tesla or 5 years ago when he co-founded Open AI. You know what's interesting? If you go back to like Google, the culture of Google which they got right was right was right was the singular technical talents there.

They were singled out and they were called Google fellows. I don't know if you guys remember this like Amit Singhal, Singhal, Singhal, Sridhar Ramaswamy, Jeff Dean. These guys are stars. And what's interesting is if you track what folks, particularly Jeff Dean I guess now because the other two aren't there anymore, but anymore, but anymore, but what they did inside of Google, it's like wave upon wave, they were at the foot of those waves. What's interesting about Andre, he's been at the wave upon wave of AI.

He was probably the first person that really commercialized the Richard Sutton bitter lesson essay when he was leading FSD at Tesla, which was really about the brute force computation. And I remember him telling me the story. I don't know if he said this publicly or not, but where he spent a portion of his time, I want to say a quarter of his time labeling data. Could you imagine like 2016, 17 like hand labeling video data from Teslas? So he did that, then he's co-founder of Open AI.

He's a star. And he's an exceptional human being and he's super curious. And then what he's done as a kind of a free agent agent agent is also quite impressive. So I think that this is a really important deal. I think he's one of these really curious people that can be sent off and they'll just go and invent new things. And I think this idea of recursive self-learning puts these models on models on models on a combination of overdrive and autopilot. And so if you put those two things together, I think that you start to to to you can potentially live out this idea that there's an order of magnitude improvement on a yearly basis.

So like this new form of Moore's law. Well so then the model quality just goes absolutely parabolicly just like this, straight up. I think that of compute at the problem and these things learn really quick. I think is the high order bit there. Gavin, what do you what's your take on Anthropic's recent success and their massive hiring binge? The success is extraordinary. It's undeniable. I think the fact that they are now they were even positive per the Wall Street Journal in the most recent quarter is a really important fact for kind of the whole AI narrative because now there's there's there's you know, you could talk about circular funding, you could talk about ROI and we could go look at the ROIC of the hyperscalers.

hyperscalers. hyperscalers. But if OpenAI and Anthropic are at call it a hundred billion dollars of ARR now with eighty percentish gross margins on inference, like the returns are there and then if we add in and they're growing really fast, if we add in Gemini, we add in Cursor, we add in xAI, we add in open source, you know, it's it's not hard to see two hundred, three hundred, four hundred billion dollars of ARR at the end of this year at high [clears throat] mark. Across all of the language models.

And you're talking specifically about the private language model companies, maybe not Google which is obviously public. You're including Google. Okay. Google. Okay. Google. Okay. I was excluding, you know, a lot of the returns to this GPU spend have come from you know, better recommender systems at Facebook and Google, Amazon, better ad targeting, better ad measurement. Sure. measurement. Sure. measurement. Sure. So, excluding that and just narrowing it to LLMs, which I think tokens is the possible definition, possible definition, possible definition, and it seems like there's going to be a really strong ROI this year, even excluding what are still some of the most economically important and profitable use cases for GPUs and AI infrastructure.

infrastructure. infrastructure. I do think what Karpathy is working on, recursive recursive recursive self-improvement, is really important and unlocking that and continual learning, learning, learning, you know, maybe the two final frontiers for for AI. And just And just And just the idea of recursive self-improvement that the model, while it is training, you know, during a forward pass, forward pass, forward pass, has input into its training, or another model has input into the training, I think that could be really powerful and I think Chamath's statistics of of, you know, 10Xing every year, you know, might seem conservative if that comes to pass.

And then, of course, continual learning is the holy grail, where the model learns from experiences the way humans do. Yeah. And that's something we haven't unlocked yet. And those those those two combined, I think would um they might pull the future forward in a very real way. Yeah, and we have right now Anthropic has a decent lead on everybody else, whether it's 3 months or 6 months. Obviously, they're probably 6-12 months ahead of open source. Maybe they're 3-6-9 months ahead of their contemporaries, but they have a lead.

You put Karpathy in there, Friedberg, now you have Karpathy, he does recursive, recursive, recursive, and at some point, and it may have even occurred at Anthropic, the AI is going to be improving the language model more than than than the humans in the loop are doing it. Obviously, they're orchestrating it, Friedberg, but at what point do we think this, let's call it, super recursiveness occurs? When will we cross the recursive valley valley valley and AI is doing more to build a language model than humans are?

I'm not sure when this idea that you feed the whole model into a context window to train itself and build a new model is going to happen, but I think there's probably a lot of different architectural paths that could be walked here. here. here. One of which is this idea that you could make much smaller models and then create networks of smaller models that work together where you ultimately have less energy or less cost per token produced out of a aggregation of models than you did with one single large model.

I've said this probably three or four times now. There's a lot of work and a lot of opportunity ahead opportunity ahead opportunity ahead in kind of re-architecting models and re-architecting how models work together to solve problems. My guess is a lot of leadership that that he can bring to exploring those paths. And all it takes is a minor breakthrough and your cost per token drops in half. That's a tremendous efficiency gain that is seems very much on the horizon because some of the early papers, I think I shared one from MIT a few weeks ago, indicate that there's a lot of room to run here in terms of re-architecting models and deployment of models.

These very small models, uh, small language models and then verticalized ones are the future. We've got a company Abacus that's doing it for corporations. Crushing it. Everybody's got an interest in doing this. And I don't know if you saw the news this week, uh, Chamath, it happened about 2 weeks ago very quietly. Chrome included Gemini, or Google included in their Chrome browser, the Gemini Nano model without telling anybody. 4 GB on your computer. And that's the one that does like proof reading, spelling, auto complete, all that.

So, now we have Google Google Google covertly installing this on everybody's operating system. operating system. operating system. on. Hold on. Covert is a strong word, so let's not use that word. Without telling people, without giving people a heads-up. Let's say it in a way that we can both agree. We're in the phase now where I think breathlessly talking about every model improvement is a waste of time. There's no ROI in it. We are on a path of accelerated learning, and we're going to start to see end user achievements that were heretofore impossible.

That should be the focus. So, for example, we were able to solve, I'm just collectively saying we, in this case it was specifically was specifically was specifically OpenAI. OpenAI. OpenAI. By the use of a human, and this is important, important, important, you know, a math problem that stood outstanding, not been solved for decades and decades. and decades. and decades. I can tell you in a different example, there are drug candidates that are about to enter clinical trials and INDs that were sitting on the shelf and people didn't think were very viable at all.

all. all. So, we're at the phase now where these things are front and center, they're useful to people, they're increasingly valuable. valuable. valuable. I think what we should do now is focus on these end user use cases use cases use cases because the way that you say it, in my opinion, is part of the problem because it starts to create this boogeyman us versus them thing, and I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, but I'm saying this is exactly why I think so many people are becoming sort of like it's a four-letter word now when you mention AI because it's presented as this thing, and I think we have to present the other side of it, at least so that people have the data.

So, I don't think Google's in the business of doing sh- shady or shady things. I don't They're not that company. There are other companies that would. Meta. Meta. Meta. You're referring to your alma mater? I'm not going to say which ones, okay? But Google is not that company. So, I I think that the reason they did it was probably because there's user utility. And my point is we should focus on the user utility because I think that's the story we're telling from now on because I think we, collectively, the four of us, us, us, can responsibly tell both sides of the story in a well-balanced way because I think nobody wins if we become Luddites and go back in time.

Yeah. And I think that if we don't if we're not careful with our words, that's what will happen. Yeah. Um and by the way, obviously not a Luddite, but this is what what what you know, has been reported by a lot of folks that people were surprised, shocked when they saw the size of the model being done in the background and it has triggered some uh people looking at it around privacy and I do agree that Google is not a bad actor in the space. So, probably a speed hour more than anything, I would say.

May I just add two things? Um there's attorney maxing and then there's attorney maxed. attorney maxed. attorney maxed. And Google is probably attorney maxed. Yes. Yeah. It happened for a long time. And the second second thing I would say is I do think it's incumbent on all of us as Americans who are involved in the technology industry in one way or another another another to be advocates for a the positive, optimistic possibilities optimistic possibilities optimistic possibilities that AI introduces to to everyone in this world this world this world because it it is starting to feel or seem seem seem like there may be a CCP-funded campaign against AI and data centers in America.

America. America. And that's very logical for China, but it is not good for America. And so, I just I think it's it we all have responsibility, is what I would say. Yeah. Who do you think's doing doing doing a poor job at that and responsible for this? Is it Dario with his constant hey, everybody's going to lose their job? Who's responsible for this? Is it the CEOs blaming AI for their layoffs? What's your take on this, Gavin? Look at Hold on a second. Everybody is trading their own book.

It makes enormous sense for Dario to try to create the boundary conditions for a regulatory moat because he will be inside of the tent pissing out. He's big enough now. And if you notice that a lot of the breathlessness has ramped up up up and Jason, we've talked about this. You can annotate successive rounds of fundraising and successive scale with the volume. the volume. the volume. So, I think that it's a reasonable business strategy and I think that he's quite clever and I think that look, if you actually and I and I do this, if you actually just have an ash bot, an ash agent inside of Quod and you ask it what it would do, it would come up with this strategy.

And meanwhile, there are other versions of other counter strategies and counter exploitative strategies. The point is that each CEO has a clear incentive. They're operating at such a level of scale that they're they're just reading their own book. So, it's it's up to us to take a step back and actually see the forest from the trees. I think Nick, can you find this? There was a clip of Sham Sankar, friend of the pod, fabulous guy, the CTO of Palantir and he was I think he was on Fox News and he said, "Stop breathlessly asking these model makers what they think.

Go to the end user and ask the person in the factory that's using the model and ask him what he or she thinks. Ask what the doctor thinks. Ask what the scientist thinks and start to tell those stories. That's what we should be talking about." Yeah, and Gavin, you were were were I was sort of asking you your opinion on what's what's who's causing this and then what's the solution? Like do you do you have folks you think in the industry who are representing it particularly well we can point out, "Hey, Elon has said we're going to move to a world of incredible abundance and working will be optional." I think that's on the margin a little scary for people to hear because they hear no job.

But, he does say, "Hey, universal basic income is probably going to have to come into, you know, place." And he said that multiple times. You have Chamath, according to Chamath, talking his own book, scaring the bejesus out of people in order to get regulatory capture. What do you think is going on here? And how can we do better as an industry? I think Chamath outlined like a very viable and positive path forward. We're just, you know, real people who are not, you know, at the tip of the spear.

These are the positive impacts AI's had on my life. I was at a I was at an event maybe 10 days I was at an event maybe 10 days ago. ago. ago. And someone who runs a hedge fund, his daughter was born with a very rare genetic mutation genetic mutation genetic mutation that effectively would have normally condemned her to a life devoid of joy, meaning everything. The neurons in her brain were not firing. So, she wouldn't you know, who knows what her life expectancy would have been or what the quality of her life would would have been.

And it's it's a tragic disease. He said he didn't accept that as an answer. He found He did an enormous amount of research with LLMs and found an existing safe drug on the market that they thought would have a meaningful impact on his daughter's condition. And it did. It took I think the percentage of times the neurons were firing was 30 or 40%. And it took it up to 80 or 90%. And that means that she can live a normal life. She may not be as smart as she would have been, but she can live a normal life.

life. life. And he's now figured out how to use AI, how to to further tailor that drug. And you know, there've been all sorts of advances in advances in advances in in protein design, etc., etc. And he's reasonably confident he's going to have a drug in months that is a complete cure. complete cure. complete cure. And that's just one person one dad who was unwilling to accept defeat for his daughter and who changed her life and the life of everyone else with that disease. And we tell those stories.

So, I think Elon's doing a good job. A future where work is optional, I think that sounds great to some people some people some people you know, scary to others. You know, four-day workweek, you know, I think it's it's probably something that sounds sounds good to a lot of people. I think Jensen is doing a good job of being an effective advocate. And I do think anyone who's trying to drive reg- I just we need to stay focused on the positives. That's what I'd say. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Freeburg, Freeburg, Freeburg, what's your take here on the AI PR crisis, if we'll call it that. Uh we had three different commencement speeches that were booed. Eric Schmidt being one of them, two other ones by maybe less notable folks. When you hear young people booing AI vociferously, why are they doing that, Freeburg? And what's your take on the overall PR problem and how to turn it around? Uh that's a there's a long answer to that question. Um It relates in some ways to your concerns about socialism and polarization.

Yeah. What's the long answer? I mean, that's like that's like that's like like why do people hate technology? The greatest technological Why do they hate this technology? They love their phones. They love the internet. This technology they hate. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. I think that there's like an underlying view that technology creates leverage for a small group of people which creates power imbalances and nothing represents that more than AI. That a small number of people that control and profit from and benefit from AI AI AI are going to end up getting outsized returns returns returns relative to the broader population.

That the time to diffusion of the technology cuz it's ultimately all technologies like commoditized and diffuse. But the time to diffusion here is such that it's going to be like extremely asymmetric for society. And I think that there is something fundamental about that. that. that. It's like, you know, nuclear bombs I think really created this this moment in people's minds people's minds people's minds in the mid-20th century that by the back half of the 20th century gave everyone a high degree of skepticism about technology and science generally.

That those who have the knowledge and those who engineer solutions with the knowledge can create outsized advantages for themselves and it puts the rest of us at risk, the rest of the world, the rest of the population at risk. And because those questions about when does this benefit me, how does it benefit me can't be answered today the economic benefit that's accruing to the few today becomes the narrative, it becomes the story and it becomes this like power system that a few people take from the many.

And so there's something deeply disturbing for the average person about that. They don't understand how it works, why it works, what it'll do for them, when it will do it, and all that they're being told is that some people are making trillions of dollars. So, I think that it's pretty obvious why this has got such a backlash. Secondly, I think that there's a deep amount of external energy that's fueling this anti-technology sentiment in the United States and has been for decades. I think to Gavin's point, I don't think it's just China with NGOs today.

I think that there is a long history of of of state actors intervening in media activities in foreign nations to try and create the sentiment and fuel a sentiment that reduces progress in that competitive state. I think this goes all the way back to KGB design KGB design KGB design during the Cold War and it's been refined and honed and improved over time. This is not just some conspiracy theory. There are plenty of great books about this. The techniques of what's going on specifically today, I don't know enough.

I don't have any great details on that. But I don't think that there's no foreign interest in seeing technology advancement slow in competitive nations. The United States probably does similar things to other nations and I think that that's probably a key part of this. And then I think this this like third piece is like when the Copernican revolution happened, it was a mind you know, like heliocentricity was a totally new way of thinking for humans and it was uh deeply disruptive to the church. And it was deeply disruptive to the power centers, which were the centers that could tell people Earth is at the center of the universe, we're in control, we're the direct channel to God.

God. God. And the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system and we spin around it and we're a tiny speck in the universe was very hard for people to grasp. There's something about AI that's very like not human-centric and it kind of shifts of shifts of shifts and with the ego of the human. It it's it's almost anti-humanist. And I think that that's like a deep psychological current a lot of people and their disdain for this technology it fuels it. It's not the cause, but I think it fuels it.

So I think there's a lot of complicated aspects to this, J Cal. You know, I don't think there's like a simple put put Cham on on a podcast and he'll solve the the problems of AI right now. I think that there's a real set of shifts happening and there's a real set of global competition underway underway underway where, you know, various state actors and interests are competing with each other. other. other. Yeah, Chamath, do you think that we should slow down? I don't think you can.

No, no, no. Do you think we should slow down? No, I I think I was just talking to some people on a Zoom right before this, but I think after the Manhattan Project, the research labs were stood up to maintain our scientists that worked on the the Manhattan Project from uh effectively leaching back or leaking back to back to back to Russia and Germany and and and other places that that were adversaries to the United States. United States. United States. And they all were against the nuclear bomb.

They worked on it because it was necessary for the United States security, but then when Russia got a hold of the secrets, they were leaked because people were worried that if the US had all the power, there would be no counter-balance to the power. power. power. And so the the nuclear secrets were leaked to Russia for that purpose. Then when Russia had the nuclear secrets and they began developing hydrogen fusion bombs, and it it was clear that they were going to race ahead, the United States raced ahead with developing nuclear bombs as a counter-balance to Russia.

When the proliferation began, there was no stopping it. It began and you had to have this balance in the world, otherwise you have effectively an asymmetric power that can do whatever it wants globally. wants globally. wants globally. I think there's that moment in the world right now where if the United States does not advance its AI technology, the availability of it, TBD, industry, taxation, all these all these things that we're talking about doing, there will be someone else that will. And if someone else does, we can go through what would happen.

There's a There's a complicated game theory on this, but what would happen if China had sufficiently advanced models and sufficiently advanced scaled deployment of those models relative to the United States, as you do that analysis, you realize, wait a second, that's probably not a healthy place for the world to be. It's also probably not a healthy place for the United States to be the only one with AI. with AI. with AI. And so I I think what we end up seeing is if we do try and slow down AI, we kind of lose this moment of balance that's necessary when you have a technology proliferation like we saw with the arms race after World War II that, you know, we're going to see again here.

Chamath, you I think bring up a good point. You know, should we slow it down or could we slow it down? There actually have been some discussions about ways to do this. One of them would be, hey, with self-driving, people are scared that all these cab drivers are going to lose their jobs, Uber drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers. This is, you know, over 10 million people in the United States driving things for a living. living. living. Would you be in favor of some of the announcements that announcements that announcements that that will be a paced rollout, it won't happen all at once.

In other words, those people will be given some amount of job security to stay behind the wheel with it. Another example that's been given is if you put Optimus into Amazon factories or the Figure robot just did like a week of just sorting packages. I'm sure everybody saw that video, we'll insert it here. it here. it here. That Figure robot sorting these, hey, if Amazon deploys those, there'll be a tax on those per hour and we'll tax humanoid robots in some ways and then use that for, say, retraining people.

Those are two very specific conditions and approaches that people have been promoting. Do either of those resonate with you in any way? I think it's interesting that in all of those discussions discussions discussions I've yet to see an actual survey of only the truck drivers and only the package sorters. sorters. sorters. [clears throat] [clears throat] [clears throat] The question that I would have is do the people that do these jobs want these jobs? jobs? jobs? And if they do, then there's a reasonable claim to make to keep those jobs the way that they are.

If you're saying this is the job that I do, I love it, I'm able to provide for my family, great. That's a very different argument than, well, you know what, Amazon has 35 or 40% churn inside of their warehouses and we should probably ask the question, why is that? Because if it was such a great job, I suspect the churn would be 3% or 4%. So, what exactly is it that we want to protect? And have you asked them? them? them? And I think that this is just a again, a bunch of bunch of bunch of people in the peanut gallery who want to take a moral high ground and try to make some other group of people feel guilty or feel bad.

At no point are we actually asking the conversation that that we should be having, which is it's interesting to me that the there was supposed to be an EO, an presidential executive order that was announced today. announced today. announced today. And then it was pulled. It was scrubbed at the last minute. Mhm. Did you guys notice that? Yeah. And yesterday what was leaked was everybody that was attending. It was all the big neo labs CEOs and it was all the big hyperscaler CEOs. Including friend of the pod, Nikesh Arora.

Shout out to Nikesh. And then it was scrubbed an hour ago. Why was it scrubbed? And the president said that there were aspects of the bill that he didn't agree with. And as far as we can tell, the aspects would have required some amount of of of supervision, insight, review from the federal government. Of language models specifically. Of these frontier models is what I read. Not language models cuz I think just of AI because there's going to be many different kinds. They're not always going to be language models, but of AI.

So, look, I think Freeburg is is right. We are in a proliferation with China. I think it's actually good that China is less than 9 months behind us. us. us. I think it allows us to find a detente where we have a certain magnitude of capability that they also have. And that allows all of us to then seek peace and abundance. And the fact that we are orthogonal societies, we are organized differently, increases the probability of finding peace using the René Girard kind of framework of memetic theory than if if it was like us and another country that was exactly similar to us.

to us. to us. So, I think what we need to do we probably need KYC. I think that that should be something that us and China get together and say, "You don't want it to get into the hands of people you can't control." You probably already KYC those models anyway inside of China. You already review those training runs before you allow these models to get released. We already know that that's happening. Yes. So, we should probably do some sort of KYC so some crazy person doesn't create some biological weapon.

I think that those are like some reasonable ground rules, but otherwise Friedberg is right. You have to take a a little bit of a deterministic view here, which is that we are in this existential race race race and we need to get to the place where each of us, meaning us and China, can look each other in the eye and say, "All right, weapons down." So to speak. Kevin, I'm going to hold you to answer two questions. One, should we should we should we run frontier models cuz that's specifically what was mentioned in the leak about the EO frontier models, the powerful ones.

Should they be run through some sort of testing before they're released and should there be some regulatory framework for that? That's my first question to you. Yes or no question and then you can explain your answer. Jeez, like I just think it's such a complicated topic. It feels we're a little early for that. I don't love the idea of the United States States States um doing it and no one else doing it. I I I like I think in a world where we hold hands with China like I think that's that's much more palatable and we are aligned and we trust each other and have kind of verification verification verification uh capabilities.

I do think Right. Yeah. Let Let me then rephrase it. Should China and the US come up with a simple battery of things that have to be be be tested before these go out including bioweapons, terrorism, and in genre of and that vertical of just really known dangerous things just like the FDA might test for poisons or contaminants in a food or a drug. Would you be in favor of that? I'm curious. So, a few things like the one one thing that's great about America is there is one thing that's just just just we have other forms of regulation.

Self-regulation, sure. We have self one we have self-regulation also we have the courts. courts. courts. And if an AI model company behaves responsibly behaves responsibly behaves responsibly they know that there are ways that people who have been harmed can seek recourse. And so we already have a system that encourages responsible behavior on the part of the model makers. That's a great point because OpenAI is being sued right now by a kid who who killed themselves after talking to OpenAI's model. So, you're you're correct in that.

Yes, after the fact. Yeah. And we will see we'll see we'll see more of that. I just you know, to me once you give something give a power to the government it's almost never taken back and it seems to grow. And it's kind of a one-way a one-way path. One-way ratchet. Yeah. And then the one-way second yeah, second question then. then. then. Chamath is saying hey nobody listens to the you know, these cab drivers or maybe the the the people sorting the packages do they want their jobs or not.

Actually the UK there was just a 60 minutes special in UK and also Boston and New York are pretty adamant that they want humans to stay and they want to ban self-driving in those locations or severely limit it or maybe limit it in some way to let those people keep their jobs. How do you feel about that possibility? Is that something you think society should be open to some gradual licensing They're going to get sued for wrongful death. When somebody runs over somebody else and you could have implemented a solution that has a zero death rate, that's very different from package sorting.

sorting. sorting. Okay. Okay. Okay. Go talk to the package sorters is what I say. Go talk to the people inside the Amazon warehouse. Ask them what they would rather do at Amazon. Ask them. Yeah, sure. But Gavin, what are your What are your thoughts here on either one of those examples here? I think going to a city where you can't get in a Waymo or a cyber cab is going to feel barbaric and unsafe until you Agree. I strongly agree. I don't know if you remember like but the early days of Uber, sometimes you go to a city where there was no Uber.

Yeah, that'd be incredibly frustrating. What I'm not going to come back until they have Uber. It's so inconvenient. And I think so whatever individual municipalities decide, I do think one, Chamath's point is really powerful. There's 50,000 automotive deaths per year in the United States if I recall correctly and a million globally. million globally. million globally. And you know, that's not tolerable and there will be for sure be wrongful death lawsuits and then just from a convenience and quality of life perspective, I just don't think it's going to persist.

And that's another great thing about America is you know, you have this patchwork of different states and municipalities and each one doing things in a different way and I'm not suggesting that's good for AI, AI, AI, but it does tend to, you know, as historically the Curley effect aside, led to, you know, I think more positive outcomes where cities and states compete. You know, the Curley effect being that being that being that Yeah, that Yeah, that this is a really important point you're making, Gavin. With Flock Safety as but one example, we had a an AI There's an AI tool called Flock Safety.

It's cameras that use AI, monitor people who are committing crimes. There's a privacy issue around it. It is bottom-up. You just do it by town. It's not top-down and states can regulate it. Same thing will probably happen with self-driving and states will probably have some say in how AI is deployed even if maybe some centralized governments don't want to do that. I really think this It comes down to The Flock The Flock The Flock thing I think it's so good, Jason. Crime is now a choice.

Yeah. You know, I think the the Cambridge City Council voted to turn off gunshot detectors 2 days ago. ago. ago. And And And Wait, which city did that? Which municipality? municipality? municipality? Cambridge. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass. That's the place where Harvard is. So, the geniuses coming out of Harvard in that town decided gunshot detection gunshot detection gunshot detection shouldn't occur. We You don't want gunshot detection. Just so we're clear. It's wild because, you know, there's there's a theory that it disadvantages, you know, that it might lead to an illegal migrant illegal migrant illegal migrant who's shooting a gun being apprehended, and we don't want that.

Got it. And A16Z had a great essay on Flock. We can really, really solve crime, and it's just a choice. And different states and municipalities will make different choices to be pro-crime or anti-crime. And I'm sure they don't cast it as pro-crime. There's an, you know, some sort of, you know, moral or ethical reason they may make that choice, but people will vote with their feet over time, and then voters will vote with their votes, and we'll see what works. Have you guys been to Vegas recently?

My wife and I went to visit Vegas, and we spent the the afternoon with Ben Horowitz and his wife, Felicia. She has done this incredible job with the Las Vegas Police Department. Department. Department. It is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen, and to your point, crime is an option, and they've said no. So, what happens there is they have gunshot they have drones that get deployed off the roof of the police building. We were sitting inside of mission control where you see it happening, Jason.

If something happens, they have eyes on site within minutes. They can track offenders and bad guys all the way to wherever they're hiding. And you walk out of it, and you feel incredibly safe, like they're really on top of it. And when you understand the level of investment, it's not it doesn't take billions of dollars compared to the cost of the crimes. It's de minimis. Especially when compared to the cost of the crime occurring. Exactly. If you gave the Las Vegas Police Department 30, 40 million dollars a year, it would be the safest city in America and that's all it would take.

Yeah, exactly. And the for the privacy concerns Freiberg, there are very simple solutions to this. I I am a privacy advocate myself, of course. We all want some level of privacy. privacy. privacy. I had the Flock CEO on This Week in Startups twice in the past 10 years. He's very considered. And the way they do it with Flock is they allow you to have a rolling database and I think there's a maximum you can save the license plates for and they don't do facial recognition. I I don't see why not, but let's put that aside.

You can only keep it for two or three years. And then they insist on having an audit trail on it. So, there are all little things you can do on the back end to protect privacy with audit trails, etc. We got a lot more to get to in the docket. I just want to just give my final thoughts on what we're talking about here in terms of the AI problem and the PR problem. I think we have to recognize that the layoffs that are occurring in Big Tech and in a lot of these places are not just the bloating issue anymore.

And I'm just going to point to two factors that I think are scaring the bejeezus out of people and we just have to admit that this is occurring as opposed to we've been debating it here. Is it occurring? Is this just cover? And are we AI washing? The first one I want to give you an example of is Matthew Prince who's the CEO of Cloudflare, incredible company, public company. Two weeks ago I laid off more than 20% of my workforce. I didn't do it because Cloudflare is struggling.

We posted record revenue growth, have strong free cash flow, and are adding an unprecedented number of customers, yada yada yada. And he says basically he's getting rid of measurers. Measurers are the people who manage people and who measure data. And he just says we're getting rid of all those people. They're unnecessary because of AI and we'll be adding to people in other positions. At the same time, Zuckerberg did another round of layoffs, and they were done in a way that people felt was not considered and a bit um um um what's the word?

Dystopian. Dystopian, thank you, sir. Uh he did him in a in a pretty dystopian way. way. way. Here's Zuckerberg for 30 seconds. In general, the average intelligence of the people who are at this company is significantly higher than the average set of people that you can get to do tasks if you're working through the contract um contract um contract um through through these contractors. So, if we're trying to teach the models coding, for example, then having people internally uh build tools that or or solve tasks that um that help teach the model how to code, we think it's going to dramatically increase our models' coding ability faster than what others in the industry have the capability to do who don't have thousands and thousands of extremely strong engineers at their company.

[clears throat] [clears throat] [clears throat] Okay, so what Zuckerberg did at the same time, concurrently, he told everybody, "We're laying off these 8,000 people." A lot of those people are incredibly talented. talented. talented. Some of them were on H-1B visas, creates all kinds of chaos for them in their personal lives, and obviously they're having record profits there as well. At the same time, he was laying off those 8,000 people. This is after tens of thousands of layoffs before, which were obviously because of bloating. He said, "We're putting recording software on every single person in the company's computer to study and train our model." And people were like, "Oh." And previous people said, "I built during the AI hackathons they had months ago.

I built all these AI tools to make my job uh more efficient." And then Zuckerberg laid me off. So, the now pers- the perception people have now, and it's quite correct, I think, is the most you can hope for here is you keep this job for some amount of time and train your way out of it, and hopefully there's some more work for you, but they're studying you, and Zuckerberg just said it plainly there, "Hey, we're going to study everybody here, and that's going to lead to more replacements.

This is scaring the bejesus out of people and we need to have an answer for it. Yeah. I thought the Matthew Prince note was horrible. Okay, explain. This was like from the from the from the PR school of retards. Okay, here we go. You could not have written a worse memo. It's like you reduce humans to a label called the measurer and then you're like I'm going to lay off all the measurers. I mean I mean I mean I just think that part of this again, I'll go back to the maybe the Sham Sankar quote that I'm thinking about should be extended beyond the model makers.

Can you just play this for 1 second and I'll tell you why I think this is just so And then we'll go on to the S1 from SpaceX. We're listening too much to the inventors of AI. I know that's appealing. They're geniuses, they're smart. We need to be listening to the frontline factory workers who are using AI saying, "Wow, I was able to add a third shift. I was able to hire more workers." Or the ICU nurse who says, "I have more time to spend with my patients.

I'm able to ensure they don't code during a shift change down." so look, my my point is like the first part of what he said applies here, which is who cares what Matthew Prince thinks? Because the reality is that if this is the way that you're going to message something as critical as this, I think you did a horrible job. And now you label these people and you put a scarlet letter on their back. So now when they try to get a different job, they're like, "Oh, you're one of the Cloudflare measurers?" How does that help anybody?

It didn't needed to be done this way. There's enough of these tech CEOs that are now public. You can hear them, you can understand them. And I think what we're learning is men, they're really good at one thing and they're not necessarily as good at all the other things. Yeah. Uh okay. And so I would say shut the up. Get behind the keyboard, just do your job and if you need to manage something, just manage it, but don't write these missives. You're terrible at it. All of you.

You're all terrible. You suck at this. this. this. All right. All right. All right. End of my TED Talk. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. coming to Chamath's 18-minute TED Talk. And we'll we'll we'll uh keep moving on. Sorry. And sorry. When everybody gets upset, this will be why. Yes. I mean I I do think the Zuckerberg this and Jack saying, you know, hey, we're going to have as many people everybody reports directly to me. This is all building this fear in society and I think people are right rightfully scared if the people building it tell you be scared, your job's going away.

Wait till the next next next regulatory filing comes out from these companies and they authorize a massive share buyback and an increase in their dividend. Yeah, and their cash pile grows. All I'm saying is there's a right way to do this, make these decisions, and then there's a wrong way to do it, which is to message it in the way that they're doing it. So, whoever is running PR and comms and approves and reviews these things are really at their job. Mhm. job. Mhm. job. Mhm.

They don't understand the moment. Oh, some breaking news here. It looks like Anthropic has hired three more people. Here we go. Oh, here we go. Personal job news from Sam Altman. He'll be joining Anthropic. I say that's pretty good. Okay. Who else is joining Anthropic? Let's see if we checked everybody's socials. Oh, Tucker. Tucker Carlson is also joining Anthropic. He'll be doing their PR and podcast from Anthropic headquarters. And Who else? Oh, Chamath. Looking good. Well, you look like you put 5 lbs on. lbs on.

lbs on. And using the people First of all, this is not This is not what I look like. And um Did you gain 5 lbs? Looks like the same guy. Are you not wearing Are you not wearing underwear? wearing underwear? wearing underwear? He's not underwear and he's wearing his khakis, but I think it's just he's trying to not show off those scrawny those scrawny sclints those those little slats he calls legs. He's covering them up now. Uh hold on. I'm going to send I I I knew that this was going to come up.

I'm going to send Nick an updated picture of my legs, and you you can deal with this. with this. with this. You can Photoshop your legs all you want. want. want. I didn't Photoshop look like didn't an brother. an brother. an brother. He's got better legs than you. I'm working on it. He may not be photoshopping. He may have been leg maxing. He could be leg maxing. Are you leg maxing? Are you BP 157 your legs? What are you doing here? of all, first of all, I'm 6'2" you goons.

Okay, so Ostrich legs. All you little people, you know, Jason, you're 5' tall, so you know, your ability to have legs I'm on a good day with my platforms. to have legs is is different cuz like my muscle mass won't show on my legs the way it shows on your leg. Oh, I don't think you're help but I look at you know what he's doing there? Freeburg, you see it, right? Look at how skinny the calves are and then look at how he's wearing a Oh my god, Jason.

bra for your quads. Oh my god, stop. equivalent of a push-up bra. He has those Bosu balls. He put Bosu balls under his hammies to You did it. You're using filets to pump those up. my legs and I flat Okay, you know what? Move on. You know, I would just say I think we should give credit where credit is due. Yeah. Jamath's legs Better. Jamath has been doing a lot of work on his legs. Thanks, Chamath. better. Thank you. It's better. Thank you. I'll I'll give him better, but I do think that he's pumping them up here.

Okay, let's keep going here. All right, topic two is SpaceX just filed their S-1 on Wednesday. They are aiming to raise 75 billy at a 1.75 trillion with a T valuation. This would be the largest IPO ever by more than double Saudi's Aramco $29 billion IPO a couple years ago. Listing is expected mid-June, likely June 12th. Ticker will be SPCX. We got a lot of interesting information in the S-1 teardown. Obviously, SpaceX has three main business units. Starlink is the money printer right now, but there's a second one that's emerging.

Starlink did 11.4 billion in revenue last year on 50% growth with 4.4 billion in operating income. Over 10 million people are now subscribing to Starlink. That business could easily be hundreds of millions of paying subscribers. So, that that's a lot of growth potentially there. The space business is but 4 billion in revenue. It's growing 17% growth, which would still be strong growth. Uh but had 650 million in operating losses. AI did 3.2 billion in revenue. That's more than double year-over-year growth, but it had 6.4 billion in operating losses.

operating losses. operating losses. SpaceX had 20 billion in capex spend last year. Over 60% was for the AI compute buildout. compute buildout. compute buildout. And obviously they were trailing Anthropic and OpenAI and Gemini in terms of XAI, uh playing catch-up. And he did a big reboot of that as we saw on the Twitter. Twitter. Twitter. But here's the big one. EWS, Elon Web Services, as we call it here on the All-In Pod, has exploded. Anthropic is paying SpaceX, wait for it, 1.25 billion a month to rent out Colossus 1 and parts of Colossus 2.

It's a $45 billion deal over 3 years, 15 billion a year. In other words, they added a Starlink in terms of revenue to the party. Plus, if they buy Cursor, that's going to add another 2 or 3 billion. Not Not if. I already told you they already bought it. bought it. bought it. Okay. I'm just trying to, you know, dot the i's and t's here. But when they buy Cursor, that adds 2 or 3 billion. That's not in the S-1. That's also growing and doubling. Yeah, that's probably growing 2x year-over-year.

And who knows how much faster it'll grow. Polymarket, 71% chance SpaceX closes its first day of trading with a market cap above 2 trillion. Thank you to our partner, Polymarket. Polymarket. Polymarket. I'll stop here. Gavin, you've been involved in the company for a long time. Chamath, you I think were a big investor in the satellite company that became part of Starlink, which is the revenue driver there. So, you both have a lot to say about this. Gavin, your take on the S-1 and I think specifically Elon web services.

services. services. Well, I think what's important about Elon web services does make me laugh. But 15 billion, that means the AI business right there is going to quadruple. It has already effectively quadrupled. quadrupled. quadrupled. I think what's important about that is there's a stat in it that for I think the the first data center was 122 days. With the second one, it took them 91 days. days. days. The third one was I think 66 days. They build data centers dramatically faster than anyone else at a lower cost.

And now that you have a clear off-take partner and I would expect partner to become partners, there is no reason they can't start stamping these data centers out really fast. fast. fast. And having watched Jensen for a long time, it is important to Jensen that his GPUs be used. And so GPUs will be allocated to who can plug them in, turn them on, and start converting electrons into tokens. And so I think this business can grow dramatically faster than I think you know, maybe what anyone could have contemplated three, you know, three three months ago.

But 15 billion dollars from Anthropic from Anthropic from Anthropic is is extraordinary. Important note, it can be canceled by either party with 90 days notice. Just want to make sure we also have that in there. So that means Elon might want his compute back or Anthropic may find another solution. So they do both have an out. And I think that's that's a you know, I think that's that's that's probably an important provision Yeah. for everyone. But I think the other thing that came out this week, which was not in the S-1.

Nick, can you throw up the parade of frontier and maybe don't, you know, include the email and the names and everything, but the composer 2.5 stat. I think this is really extraordinary. extraordinary. extraordinary. So, Cursor's composer 2.5 model came out this week. this week. this week. And I mean, this is Pareto dominant. And this is just you know, three, four weeks of doing reinforcement learning reinforcement learning reinforcement learning on Colossus 2 with Cursor's data. And Cursor has We will never know, but but Cursor allegedly has more tokens of coding data than exist on the public internet.

internet. internet. And that is a stat from I think more than a year ago, so I'd imagine it's grown significantly. grown significantly. grown significantly. And I think Cursor and Anthropic probably have the most proprietary tokens of coding data. And what this this jump from composer 2 to composer 2.5 showed us is that when you do an appropriate amount of reinforcement learning using that data, well, let alone injecting it into the pre-training of a new base model. model. model. Cuz composer 2.5 is the same base model as composer 2, which is Kimmy K K 2.5.

Like, this is amazing. This is three or four weeks, and it is Pareto dominant. The Pareto frontier, if you draw a curve of the blue dots, you can see composer 2.5 is literally well outside the Pareto frontier. And that's after three weeks. And what's going to happen next is you're going to have a new base model with a Cursor model in it. Yep. Then the Cursor model Cursor model Cursor model RL'd RL'd RL'd using the biggest coherent compute cluster in the world. And I think this is this is this is I I think this may It's significant, yeah.

It's extremely significant for XAI and Cursor. And Cursor was dead in the water in terms of access to compute and they were falling very far behind Kodaks, Google, Anthropic, and then Elon let them on Colossus and boom, instantly their models are growing faster and this could be we could be sitting here a year from now and they're the dominant player. And And And could we be sitting here Gavin in a year and Elon is selling compute to Google and OpenAI? Is that a possibility or not?

not? not? Well, I think it's much easier to see him selling compute to Google and I think that's going to happen. There've already been posts about that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And for sure Google is going to want to be part of orbital compute. You know, it's it's a very funny. The only people who are skeptical of orbital compute are those people who are not involved involved involved in data centers or space. Google, Anthropic, Amazon, Nvidia. They are all very convinced that orbital compute is going to be reality and obviously SpaceX is extraordinarily well positioned for that.

But I do think that composer 2.5 data point is really powerful. Keep an eye on it. Yeah. it. Yeah. it. Yeah. And then the other thing that's come out is Grok builds. So, what Grok lacked that a lot of other models had and I do think it's important to remember that the newest version of Grok 4.3 is on the Pareto frontier for all frontier models. frontier models. frontier models. And you're either on the frontier or you're not. you're not. you're not. And the the companies on the frontier are xAI are xAI are xAI with one build of Grok 4.3, which is a 500 billion parameter model, Google 3.1 Pro, and then OpenAI and Anthropic.

And that's it. Those are the companies on the frontier. And then the four horsemen, yeah. Google today each have one dot on the Pareto frontier. And obviously you want as many dots as possible, but Grok lacked a harness. So, Claude had Claude code, Open AI had Codex, and now with Grok build there is a harness that is available to to Grok, and you know, as I'm as I'm sure a downloadable app to translate into English that has integrations to all your favorite stuff, whether it's Notion, Gmail, Slack, etc.

And if you don't have that, it's just like using a a basic chatbot from a year ago. So now they have their downloadable, it's in market, and they are cooking with oil on it, and they're playing catch-up, but they're moving fast. And and it's it's more than just an app. It's it's a runtime, it's an environment, it manages state, it manages memory. It makes these models dramatically more useful to the extent that I think the people at the frontier all agree that the harness is essentially as important as the model, especially in an energetic world, and the harness and the model need to be developed together.

So the release of Grok build and the pace at which they're iterating is I think also really encouraging. So now you have Cursor, you have the Cursor data, you have a clear existence proof that the Cursor data is really important cuz cuz Composer 2.5 is now Pareto dominant and the most selected model on Cursor, and that's also important because, you know, these evals don't capture everything. You know, this is why people on X talk about the vibes, and the vibes on Cursor 2.5 are also really good.

They're immaculate, yeah. That together Yeah. with Grok build, I think these are really important developments. Yeah, I they're There was Elon was incredibly frustrated by the state of affairs at XAI. He was very public about that, and he's less frustrated now, and he's shipping a lot faster. And so I think that says something, and he has been very focused on it. on it. on it. Freeberg, your thoughts on the SpaceX IPO and what this collection of companies might look like a year or two from now, especially if, like many people believe people believe people believe Tesla and Tesla and Tesla and SpaceX merge, what do you think of dollar sign E L O N as an entity and what impact it might have as if those two were put together the market cap would put them in the fourth largest company in the world.

We can revisit our earlier conversation about an anti-tech, anti-AI, anti- anti-AI, anti- anti-AI, anti- progress progress progress world and society ahead. And if there is an effort a concerted effort and organized effort by governments to stop or block access to information, restrict freedom of speech, restrict freedom of purchasing or buying things to to to control more things. And I think there's a trend line in this direction right now globally. The internet has always been lauded as this kind of system that provides an open alternative to physical commerce that you could create digital commerce, digital uh uh uh information, digital media that you could share.

And um it's almost this digital representation of society, but the internet has to sit physically somewhere. somewhere. somewhere. And the assault on data center builds out in the United States right now, I think I think I think may indicate the importance of having an alternative internet from the ground layer up. If you have a communication network that isn't restricted and controlled controlled controlled by a government on Earth. on Earth. on Earth. It's almost like a backup for civilization, but it's a backup for progress. progress. progress.

And I don't own any SpaceX shares, and I'm not trying to sell the book of SpaceX. SpaceX. SpaceX. But I think that there's like an important aspect of can you create a system that's not under the control of governments as a way to ensure humanity's progress, to ensure civilizational continuity if things go south, if things aren't good, if things are restricted, and if, you know, fundamental forms of tyranny start to restrict speech, restrict commerce, restrict information flow, and whatnot. And I think having like a space-based communication network, space-based data centers, centers, centers, and space-based communication back down to Earth wireless, I think it's generally a good thing.

It's good to have a backup. Yeah. So, put all the economics aside and the multiples and the valuations and whatnot, and whether it's SpaceX or not, I think the idea that you could have data centers, store information, transmit information, route information, and access information through space-based systems that can't be controlled, manipulated, or destroyed by governments, is is important. And I I just I like that. Yeah, if you Most people don't remember this, but when Elon was starting SpaceX, the original idea, original idea, original idea, when he was running around with the DAO, and they were looking at some rockets and getting carriage from Russian rockets, was to back up the biosphere.

And he came back from that trip, and I remember talking to him about it, and he said, "I think I just have to make my own rockets, because that's actually where the problem is, and it would be easier just to make my own rocket to back up the biosphere." And he wanted to put geodomes, geodomes, geodomes, like geodesic domes in space, with all the plants and wildlife and and creatures. creatures. creatures. Uh and what incredible vision, and then it, you know, there was the necessity of actually getting that up into space, and that's that's the the unknown origin story.

I will say this, Chamath, the idea of putting uh data centers in space seems completely doable, even though there are a bunch of people who are saying it's not, not, not, when you compare it to what happened with SpaceX um with Starlink, which people said also wouldn't work. And now he's got 10,000 Starlinks up there. The difference between a Starlink satellite and a data center satellite is really not that different. And No, they're they're pretty different. Well, conceptually, of course they're physically different, but conceptually Elon put 10,000 Starlinks up.

Is he capable of putting 10,000 No, look, the size is much the size the size is much bigger, Jason. The foils are much bigger, the wings are much bigger. but it's it's Yeah. My point is it's not different if he has the new Starship. Cuz that's 10 times bigger, yeah. You can't just scale like this. That being said, it's technically possible. I think he will be the first one to figure it out. out. out. But I'll just take a much more pedestrian take, which is okay, you're sitting here sitting here sitting here and if I'm asking myself, Chamath, how do I underwrite SpaceX at $2 Here's the basic math that I would do.

Well, last year it did 18 19 billion dollars. It'll probably do 25 to 30 this year. Okay. So, I'm buying this thing at a fairly costly premium, right? So, what am I buying? Well, I'm buying probably the most important internet infrastructure project that's happened since the internet itself. internet itself. internet itself. That's going to scale to hundreds of millions of users. And the reason that's going to scale to hundreds of millions of users is it's just very useful and it's just going to become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

cheaper. cheaper. So, that's number one. I'm buying a delivery infrastructure. But I think over time GDP plus 10, GDP plus 15 kind of a grower. So, good business, valuable business, but it's the underlying platform that allows everything else to happen. And then I'm buying an AI business which will be at the top level of the apps, but at the bottom layer all the compute capability. capability. capability. And I think when you scale that out, like why is Colossus so valuable to Anthropic? Maybe that's like a good question to ask.

It's because if you look at who's actually capable of delivering a gigawatt data center, these guys are the closest. Like an actual gigawatt. And And the reason is is that this stuff is very complicated and very, very hard. I think you've probably heard this famous story where Jensen was like, "Yeah, he was the one that figured out this one thing that we that nobody else could figure out so that you could strip a bunch of racks and drive a bunch of east-west traffic and make the whole thing work together." So, I suspect what happens is next year it's probably it's probably it's probably 40, 45 billion.

And then the year after that it probably doubles again. So, now I'm buying it at 20 times revenue. And you would say, "Well, why can you buy a company like this on revenue versus earnings and cash flow?" And I think the reason is because what the revenue does is it gives him the operating leverage to go and invest in all of these other businesses that ultimately consolidate his differentiation and his competitive moat. Because what he creates is a capital moat that then accelerates a technology moat that then accelerates an execution and a learning moat.

And that's flywheel when it starts to spin very quickly. And you would say, "Hey, hold on a second. It's probably spinning quickly now." I would say we're at the beginning of the beginning. the beginning. the beginning. Because he's Again, he still has all these disparate assets. I still don't like the fact that Tesla's over here. And as I've told you, that will get merged in. And now you have this incredible corpus of physical capability, physical capability, physical capability, movement of all kinds, X, Y, and Z, right?

right? right? You have learning capability. You have infrastructure. You have all the connectivity. connectivity. connectivity. That thing will look very cheap, I think, in a few years. And he has this one thing that nobody else, if you look at the big CEOs, who steps on stage where you're always curious, "Okay, what does he got up his sleeve?" You know, the Steve Jobs, "Oh, and one more thing." This is the only guy at the scale of civilizational civilizational civilizational out of left fields. He's he's the guy.

Whether you like him or you hate him, he's the guy. And there's a premium that is well deserved that comes with that. So, if you had to pick an underwriting case, Jason, I would flex the revenue and realize that terrestrial data centers alone centers alone centers alone are 100 or 200 billion dollars of revenue by 2030, 2032. Just And that means just building it. So, already you're buying it at 20 times revenue just for that business. Everything else is gravy. is gravy. is gravy. on the ground earth-based.

It'll be Colossus three, no, no, forget space for a second. It's a Colossus three, Colossus four. It pencils out with that, yes. Getting a nameplate 1 gigawatt Look, it is freaking hard, man. Getting a gigawatt nameplate working is almost And then, by the way, there's all the stuff that he can do on land that he's the best positioned to do. I'll give you one example. There's a great push that Jensen's making, which he needs a partner, and I think Elon becomes a natural partner, to do DC to DC.

Forget all this DC to AC to DC nonsense that goes inside of a data center. All the lossiness, all the lossiness. lossiness. lossiness. that is in English, yeah, for everybody. Just like, look, you go through a bunch of power transformations to to actually deliver the electrons into the rack so that, as Gavin said, you can generate the token on the other end. Today, it's it's very inefficient, it's very costly, it requires a lot more power, it requires a lot of cooling, it requires complexity. And what people have said is, "Wow, if we could just do DC to DC." Like, it comes in as DC, direct current, it goes right to the rack as DC.

But it requires a fundamental rearchitecture. fundamental rearchitecture. fundamental rearchitecture. Jensen needs a design partner and a thought partner to get that done. Mhm. He's probably the only one. So, I just think there's a lot of reasons where you can underwrite this to a multiple of revenue plus the X factor, which is just the creativity and the the one more thing. Love it. And then here's two uh charts, and I'll have you comment on these, Gavin, after it. Here's the rocket sizes. Just in terms of scale and I most people have not actually seen a Starship in person.

When you see this thing in person and I I've been inside that rocket. rocket. rocket. I think you were we were together, Gavin, when we were in the first build and like inside of that you can fit 300 people. It's basically like a giant a giant a giant if you thought of a commercial air aircraft, that's what it feels like when you're inside, right? Like a 747 in terms of the amount of space in it. Especially when you compare the Falcon Heavy, which is their workhorse, correct, Gavin?

Yeah, and Starship's going to get bigger. Based on their road map, it's going to get a lot bigger. A lot bigger and then this one is the most interesting that this started trending this week. This is cumulative payloads launched 1957 to today. SpaceX is basically about to in just that and and this is really what exponential growth is about and this is what disruptive technologies are about. Just from 2012 to today, to today, to today, SpaceX is about to dwarf the rest of the world's cumulative payloads into space.

So, Gavin, maybe take the other side of it. When do these data centers in space happen? What has to happen for those to be a reality? When does that hit SpaceX's bottom line? We've heard from Chamath, "Hey, here's all the things that hit the bottom line in the short term and mid term." But I think data centers in space would be a mid term to long term play. 3 years is what I'm hearing. So, hearing. So, hearing. So, tell us about that business in relation to the two charts I just shared.

Well, the one thing I would just say, well, first, all those charts about launch are before Starship was operational and most most of that mass to orbit was done by Falcon. Yes. And Starship the Falcon is reusable. Starship is designed to be rapidly reusable and this is a critical difference. Like, let's say Blue Origin successfully solves reusability. reusability. reusability. They're where SpaceX was 10 years ago. Let's say China solves it 10 years ago. Rapid re- The reusability means that you extensively refurbish the rocket, you know, the engines, everything, the fairing.

It takes a lot of time. You know, maybe you can fly that rocket again in again in again in 30 days, 60 days. Rapid reusability means that you can fly the same fly and land the same rocket multiple times per day. So, if SpaceX and and it's really hard to do rapid reusability. I think it would have been It would have been not trivial, but much easier to have Starships working if it was just designed to be reusable. Hmm. [clears throat] That's not enough for what Elon wants to achieve of, you know, a a moon base, a colony on the moon, a colony on Mars, mass drivers on the moon.

You need rapid reusability, and that is why Starship is such a an engineering challenge and will be such an impressive achievement when they have rapid reusability. But, I do think that mass to orbit rapid reusability of Starship means if they get you When do you predict they'll have that, rapid reusability to space, you think? think? think? I mean, we're going to find out We're going to find out, you know, we find out I'm I'm I'm I'm going to be at Starbase today for the whole launch.

Yeah. So, you know, we we we turn over cards and, you know, it's important for everyone to remember, remember, remember, like, let's just let's just say it's a fireball. SpaceX will still learn from this. Yes. They They They learn from failure. If you don't fail, you're not learning. Same way, if you're not wrong, you didn't learn anything in that day. And this is a brand new rocket, a brand new booster, a lot of new technology. There's a lot of instrumentation on it. So, whatever happens today, SpaceX is going to learn and rapidly iterate.

I don't know when. I don't want to make a prediction. a prediction. a prediction. I would guess a year or two. Maybe sooner. I think that's most consensus. A year or two is I think perfect consensus, yeah. We'll see. So, like the Even if everybody else solves reusability, master orbit from everyone else will quickly asymptote to a very small number. As far as when will orbital compute be a reality? I would say, "Well, it is important to realize there is a working H100 and NVIDIA H100 GPU in space today.

Yeah. Andrej Karpathy both trained a model on and used for inference. So, this is this is this is you know, it's it There's a working GPU in space today. And NVIDIA's making a space-designed space-designed space-designed version of this, which will be different because the heat sink has to be different. There's a bunch of weight that you put on it when it's in a data center that you don't need in space. And you also have to reinforce it for the journey to space because these things are going to shake and break apart.

The data center ones are not made to have that many Gs put on them. So, you're going to need an an an industrial an industrial-strength one that gets to space that has a different profile. Yeah, Gavin? Well, one of the things that's been so magical about SpaceX is they're very good at engineering the rocket and the payload so that you can use semiconductors that are not designed Hm. be in space or satellites in space. And those semiconductors are a lot cheaper. We have a couple My my firm, Matroid, is is an investor in a company called Excite Labs that it's a matter of public record is going to be in essentially every Starlink.

And the chips were not designed to go to space. They're not radiation-hardened. You know, everyone you know, SpaceX really liked a lot of the the specifications on the chips. and then it's like, well, we'll see how they do with rad testing and they just so happen to pass. And so that is one of like one of something that's very under appreciated I think about space. One of their specialties. One of their specialties. Yeah. But I think second half of 28 to first half of 2030 would be my point prediction.

All right, let's do Nvidia and then the the market recap since we have you here Gavin and since Freeberg you wanted to get in on that. Nvidia blew out its earnings again. again. again. Q1 performance is just mind-boggling. 81.6 billion in revenue up 85% year-over-year, 20% year-over-year, 20% year-over-year, 20% quarter-over-quarter. High growth in the stock market for those people who don't participate, 20% would be a high growth company. company. company. Year-over-year. They did that quarter-over-quarter. 58 billion of net income and 48 billion in free cash flow.

They're doing all this at 75% gross margins. margins. margins. They're growing massively and they're obviously the most valuable company in the world at a 5.3 trillion-dollar market cap. Stock's up but 16% year this year with all that growth. That's a magnitude of that 16%. And And And they've announced another 80 billion in additional buybacks on top of the 100 billion in buybacks they did at the start of 2023. So they're buying back about 4% of the company. They raised the quarterly dividend 25x from 1 cent a share to 25% cents per share.

share. share. And their CFO said they're going to return 50% free cash flow to shareholders. shareholders. shareholders. Never been a company like this, huh Freeberg? The the scale of this is just extraordinary. extraordinary. extraordinary. Mhm. Yep. Mhm. Yep. Mhm. Yep. Don't don't seem to They have first there's your market report from Freeberg. Don't seem so enthused. Yeah, it's a mhm mhm. He's got potatoes in the oven. I have a question for Gavin. He did a really interesting talk with Patrick O'Shaughnessy and there was this one thing that I wanted to ask you about cuz I thought it was so interesting.

You said when you look at the revenue multiples of the chip companies and you look at the revenue multiples of the DRAM companies, both cannot be true. In the context of Nvidia's earnings, can you just explain maybe in plain language for folks? I just thought it was so fascinating cuz it explains it explains, I think, just to set it up where is value over the next 5 years? Like, I think if you looked at Leo Ashan Brenner, his fund has gone from like zero to 5 billion dollars overnight and it looks like he's just got massive puts on the chip sector and he's kind of rotated.

So, just give us context, Gavin. Where Where's the puck going? Well, so maybe take the question in the reverse orders. For Leopold, who's clearly a brilliant man, I think he was a road scholar like 19 and I think my understanding is he's putting up pretty extraordinary numbers. I I've yet to meet him. meet him. meet him. He actually shares an office in San Francisco with a friend of mine, so I think I'll probably meet him sometime soon. But, it's got to for that 13F that he filed was at the end of the first quarter quarter quarter when, you know, I would say we were in the, you know, the the thick of geopolitical fears.

geopolitical fears. geopolitical fears. And I think you saw a lot of puts on a lot of 13Fs and I don't know that those puts are still there. Okay. You know, I think a lot of people wanted to be hedged for on and, you know, now I think it's a little more clear. So, I wouldn't read I wouldn't read Leopold's 13F as being super negative on on semi. Chips. Okay. On chips. On chips. On chips. Second thing, I think cross actually, if you look at the valuations for all these AI names, they just they can't all be accurate.

You have memory makers that, you know, you know, you know, three to five times PE. You have Nvidia at a really low PE. You actually have, um, you know, some other accelerator companies at reasonable multiples. reasonable multiples. reasonable multiples. And then you have everything else. Everything in power, everything in cooling. And when I say power, I don't mean utilities. So IPPs are actually quite quite quite reasonably valued. But power, cooling, even probably some of some of the optical names. optical names. optical names. These are discounting very different things.

If the multiples on the power, cooling, optical names are correct, Nvidia, memory, they're going up a lot. If the multiples on Nvidia and memory are are correct, everything else is probably going to underperform. The AI market is cross-sectionally inefficient right now, which is what I was trying to say. As far as the Nvidia quarter, I do They went to a new reporting structure, data center and AI and then with I know, data center and edge. And then within within AI, they have hyperscalers and then I think they call it AI clouds AI clouds industrial and enterprise.

What I believe is if we were to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, apples-to-apples comparison, apples-to-apples comparison, and Broadcom, you know, there's a narrative that Nvidia is losing share to the TPU. the TPU. the TPU. And Broadcom guided for 143% year-over-year growth in their AI semiconductor revenue in the quarter that they will report. Uh that's comparable to the one Nvidia just reported. reported. reported. I think I think I think if you were to and I just I so wish they had reported slightly differently. I wish they'd done hyperscalers, AI clouds, and then industrial and enterprise.

Because I think the think the think the segment that is comparable is the sum of hyperscalers hyperscalers hyperscalers plus AI clouds, stripping out China cuz Broadcom just did not have the China business that Nvidia did. Nvidia did. Nvidia did. And I think on that basis, in other words, in within the western AI world, within data centers that are being built, whether they're being built by CoreWeave, XAI, Amazon, Google, Mhm. Nvidia's AI business is growing faster than Broadcom's. And faster than a lot of other companies that are, you know, seen as part of this ASIC share gain story.

And, you know, I think Jensen has become and you could you can hear it increasingly frustrated, and rightfully so, at two things. One is to say, what is the performance of stock? Uh two two two vocal about that. Like, what is going on here? You're putting up record numbers, and we're getting no like, uh credit. Yeah, I get it. And it just just just how can there be a share loss narrative if I'm gaining share? And it is indisputably true that he's growing faster than hyperscaler CapEx, even without these adjustments.

Yeah. And I think the other thing that's so frustrating to him is these other ASICs Mhm. are not being submitted for benchmarks. They're not at the CV analysis infer inference max. They're not at MLPerf. And I think the reason they're not being submitted is they would lose. Mhm. And you can't fight shadows. And until we see a clean benchmark of whether it's GB300s versus TPU V7s, or, you know, versus versus inferentia, yeah. Yeah. versus yeah, versus Tranium. Yeah. If we're we're not going to know. And that's why the a lot of these other chips chips chips I think Tranium's in a great spot, aren't being submitted.

But nonetheless, if Nvidia's doing well, once you become the largest company the world, you kind of you tend to trade by observation would be at stairstep patterns. patterns. patterns. Where you kind of the multiple compresses, compresses, compresses, cuz people are skeptical of the size Then you have a re-rating. Yeah. And then you re-rate. New floor is established at a higher rate. Yeah. I think there was one other really important thing in the Nvidia quarter. It's they said that they thought their CPU business was going to be $20 billion this year.

this year. this year. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Put it there. It means overnight you're one of the world's largest CPU manufacturers. And I think that is a testament to Nvidia has a unique position. They're the only company that works with every lab. And so that puts them in the best position to architect their chips, they call co-designed, for where the models are going. are going. are going. And I think that $20 CPU figure is pretty extraordinary. This is the thing like at the end of this Groq transaction last year, my kind of prevailing thought on this is we're going to move to these domain-specific architectures.

I thought that was like a a fait accompli, we're just now waiting for which models, but the reality is that that DSA market evolution is actually happening inside of Nvidia. That's what's so insane to me. That was my takeaway from the quarter as well, which is like holy These guys actually have domain-specific architectures because they're doing these design programs with every This is why back to sort of the, you know, when he does DC to DC with Elon and Colossus 3 or whatever, it's just this it's another game-changer for everybody.

He doesn't have one chip, he makes nine. And then I don't think the cost at which you can finance these chips and these useful lives is really important. You had an incredible insight, which is the amortization schedule for Cerebras and all these guys, they got saved. You may want to just explain what that is and what why you said that. I thought that was a great insight. No, thank thank you Chamath, I appreciate it. So, when Cerebras and all these neo clouds came public, and by the way, this goes for the hyperscalers too, there was a big bear case that hey, the these guys are amortizing their GPUs and CPUs over four or five or six years, and that's way too short of a lifespan.

The true lifespan of a GPU is more like two years, and therefore, you know, the profits of all these businesses are overstated. The reality is This was Michael Bury who put this out there. there. there. Yes, to be clear, yeah. Yeah, and you know, know, know, thank you Michael Bury, we need bears. Thank you. Yeah, that's like that's like asking Gerardo about modern music. Well, I don't I don't want to cast aspersions on Michael Bury, he's a he's a brilliant man, but we need Barry. Let me Hey, somebody call Vanilla Ice and ask him what he thinks.

Oh my god. Milli Vanilli, check your mail. mail. mail. waste What a waste of time. What a waste of time. Oh, poor Michael Come on the program anytime, Michael Berry. Go ahead, Gavin. You know, keep it side track. I'm happy to chat. But now that we've disaggregated inference, we have these different domain-specific accelerators. You can mix and match them. Mhm. And I think the GPU stays in a lot of ways at the center of this constellation for a while. And you can put whether it's a Groq accelerator, whether, you know, it's a Cerebras accelerator in front of old GPUs, use Groq or Cerebras for decode.

And then those older GPUs, they have a useful life for 10 or 15 years. And this means that you can finance GPUs I think Coreweave's lowest financing, I can't forget if it's 6% or 7%. 6% 6% 6% Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And if you can get an asset-backed loan, an asset-backed financing for GPUs at a lower rate than other chips. No, that That's a profound advantage. That quarter single-handedly saved the Neo Neo's clouds. This quarter Nvidia Nvidia Nvidia saved I mean, they single-handedly saved them all. I think they they should all They should all say an incredible thanks to Jensen because uh I interviewed the CEO of Coreweave, Michael Intrator.

Michael Intrator, yeah. And he was saying, "Hey, listen, people have no problem buying and financing these over a 6-year period. And people are asking for things that are coming off and that he thinks they're going to have year 7 8 9, they'll have some useful life, you know, uh in addition to that. So Yeah, so he's like, "I I I don't know what anybody's talking about here." Like, this is just not informed analysis was his point. Like, I the game on the field and people are betting with their dollars with him.

He has them pay in advance and sign 6-year contracts. If they didn't think it had 6-year lifespan, they wouldn't be signing a 6-year contract. Pretty straightforward. And they can't get enough of them. Okay, let's end on this market update, macro picture, not great. Oil remains elevated, although there might be a settlement every week we have there is a settlement coming. Maybe this time 16th time it's a charm in the Iran war is going to wrap up, but we're in week 12 of it. And this was supposed to be 4 to 6 weeks.

So, wars never get resolved quickly. That's one thing we've learned in our lifetimes. Oil is driving inflation massively higher. Polymarket says 99% chance May inflation comes in at 4.2% or higher. Survey of professional forecasters projecting CPI hits 6%. You heard that right, folks. We weren't just talking about a 3% handle, which we just said. Now people are saying 4, 5, and 6% in Q2. And obviously, that's a huge revision. And the narrative was, "Hey, more Fed rate cuts coming." Now we're talking about Fed rate increases.

Inflation is causing obviously bond yields to rise. 10-year hit 4.6%. You remember we've had Besson on the on the on the pod multiple times, and his goal was to get that under 4%. Now it's significantly above that number. And also, if we go around internationally, Japan's 30-year is at a high of 5.1%. Highest ever recorded. UK yields highest since the great financial crisis. Germany highest since 2011. And in Korea, retail investors are borrowing borrowing record amounts of money to trade in AI chip stocks. They also had an incredible run in Korea betting on crypto at the peak.

So, that's some sort of an interesting signal. Friedberg, is your alt personality going to come out right now? Are you concerned? concerned? concerned? Is Dr. Doom making an appearance here, or do you think this is manageable? How concerned are you? What is the point of being concerned when you have ridden the roller coaster to the top and it is beginning its descent? I I don't know what there is to be concerned about. The the the force of gravity is inevitable. inevitable. inevitable. The roller coaster will roll down.

We will throw our hands in the air and we will scream wee as we go for the ride. Global debt to GDP is 310%. Reserve currency status to the side the spending problem at the federal, state, local level, the spending problem at every country to basically keep economies growing to support existing leverage, ultimately creates a cascading effect. It ultimately breaks and as it starts to break you have massive inflation because the value of your underlying underlying underlying currency collapses and then you have money printing and all this other sort of stuff which inflates the value of assets which allows you to keep servicing your debt and the spiral takes off.

And so we will just enjoy the ride. This is the moment, you know, 30-year Treasury 5.2%. Treasury 5.2%. Treasury 5.2%. This Japanese yield some argue might, you know, you should talk to more active market participants than me, but and probably some economists who trade the market, but I would think that this is one of those things that could be a catalyst for a for a a credit crisis because there's a lot of people that are in this carry trade. And we'll see, you know, this is Okay.

Okay. Okay. This is water leaking out of the bucket. There it is. he is. Dr. Doom is here. Chamath, your thoughts on thoughts on thoughts on Dr. Doom's panic attack of the month. Uh, is this is this time real? Is this the 17th prediction of the next six recessions? What do we got here, Chamath? Are you concerned? How concerned are you about these signals that are flashing? I think I think that's exactly what that is, Jason. There are signals that are flashing. I think there's pockets of the market that still make sense that you can underwrite if you want to buy businesses that represent the future.

the future. the future. And if you can find a few of those and you can get comfortable with that and you can own it for 10 years, I think you buy those companies and generally everything else I think you should not speculate and you should generally avoid. Not just because it's an up market, but in every market. I've learned this the hard way. We've all kind of gone through this. As I get older, I it's just not worth it. The vicissitudes of the market um don't give me anywhere near the sugar high it used to on the way up and it makes me feel horrible on the way down.

So, how I manage myself is I have a few companies that I really believe in. I have extremely concentrated large holdings in those. Large for me doesn't mean large for everybody else. And then otherwise, I just kind of stick to my knitting and keep my head down. It's a much more rational way to behave. So, So, So, How many public stocks can you keep in your brain and still sleep at night holding for the long term, Chamath? What's the Is there a number for you? Is it five?

Is it 10? Is it Seven. It's five It's five or less. Five or less? Five or less. And so, what your largest holding right now is what percentage of your net worth, which is a I don't know. Or like top two, maybe. Yeah. Oh, top two? Yeah, like one and two. One is 20, two is 15, or one is 40, two is 20. I don't know. Again, it depends on the day. But I don't know. But it's it's Just curious. curious. curious. But I think that's really But I think that's really important.

important. important. My point is there's no 30 things that I'm tracking. I don't I don't have the time. I'm not smart enough. There's too much information. There's like four things that I stay on top of. Gavin, you you do this for a living. How many positions do you manage and what's your take on some of the flashing signs that are saying, "Hey, slow down." or maybe there might be a wreck around the corner here, you know, when they do the checkered flag in the F1 or whatever the metaphor you want to use is.

Well, so what I I manage more than 100 positions at my firm. Um and I do that with a team. We're over 30 people now. So, it's not just me and I work with some some great people. I then I then I then three things can be true. Rates going up is very concerning. What is happening with AI right now with Anthropic growing faster than any country any company in history at massive scale. And certainly any country. Absolutely unprecedented. Yes. They're actually Yeah, they are they are now the size of, you know, Yeah, yeah, they're they're they're pull up where they They're bigger than a hundred different countries.

For sure. Exactly. And compounding really fast. And now profitable. Yeah. Which I think really changes the moment. Which is bizarre. Yeah. Yeah, how did that happen? So, those things can both be true. And I think we should all remember the tech bubble happened with, you know, the 10-year and the 30-year much higher than they are today. And, you know, you know, you know, the the Nvidia of of of the tech bubble was Cisco and it traded a hundred times forward earnings. And you know, I think Nvidia is probably at a low teens multiple of kind of low to mid-teens multiple of real earnings, you know, if you that that'd be a buy-side consensus, not the trade's number.

And then the third thing that I think is true is a straight out formula is being closed. While it's terrible for everyone, it is relatively the best for America because we are self-sufficient in energy, we are self-sufficient in food, we've become a massive exporter of oil, we're now the world's largest not only oil and gas producer, producer, producer, but oil and gas exporter. And, you know, those three things can be true. What do they mean? I think it's probably hard for me to see with America being the most advantaged by what is going on.

We're still the best currency. Yeah. the best economy. We still have the best public economy and we have the best private market companies. Yeah. And we are one of the greatest producers of oil in the world. So, we're in good shape despite this international chaos. I don't think a dollar crisis is around the world. Now, listen, like if, you know, the Bundesbank in was still in charge and you had the Deutschmark and there was a currency with better fundamentals, we would be at very high risk, probably.

But just cuz we're the best house and what is globally a, you know, bad neighborhood of high debt levels and we have AI in our corner and we have energy self-sufficiency and every day the Strait of Hormuz is closed, I think is relatively good for the reindustrialization of America. Like I think you know, you have to you have to all these You're saying it's a forcing function. It makes us, just like COVID did, be more resilient and yeah, more self-reliant. Yes, and electricity is a base input to every manufacturing or industrial process, essentially all of them.

Mhm. And what we make electricity with in America overwhelmingly is natural gas and you can look it up. NG1, it is down this year. year. year. Mhm. The input cost for electricity in the rest of the world, you know, lots of different things, but LNG is a very important one and it's up 100, 200%. And so the Strait of Hormuz is absolutely absolutely absolutely bad for everyone, but relatively good for America and relatively good for Trump's policy goals Mhm. and that's why I think he's in no hurry.

Every day the Strait is closed and for whatever he does seem like a relative thinker. Every day the Strait of Hormuz is closed is relatively good for America. It's terrible for Europe. It is terrible for Asia. Japan and China need that oil. Philippines needs it. India needs it. Yeah. Yeah, it's so all these things can be true, but the one thing I do just want to say is rates going up and inflation going up is never good. But we have to hold what's happening with AI where the fundamentals are getting a lot stronger in our mind and the the one thing I would just add is AI has been seasonal, the market's seasonal.

seasonal. seasonal. You know, it often, you know, sell in May, go away. And AI fundamentals also appear a little seasonal. seasonal. seasonal. In the past that's been cuz you know, cuz college students they they use a lot less chat GPT and Claude in the summer and generally people maybe work a little less hard when the weather's nice. Now with the generative AI, will the fundamentals still be seasonal? We will see. Oh, that's a really interesting point, right? We see that e-commerce, apps, subscriptions as investors in a lot of these companies, we would always have these board meetings Chamath.

Oh, uh Q3, uh yeah, people are out gallivanting and they're not playing Candy Crush or buying calm or whatever. But oh hey, Uber and DoorDash went up, people are traveling, etc. Okay, final story of the week. We had a 48-hour jaunt by a bunch of tech CEOs and the president to hang out with Xi. A lot of high fives, a lot of handshakes, of handshakes, of handshakes, a lot of great vibes, but coming out of it we haven't seen anything definitive Friedberg Friedberg Friedberg in terms of policy.

This was supposed to be some big breakthrough. It would have downstream effects on tariffs, on us selling chips to China. We did see a little movement there uh and the Strait of Hormuz, we would become, you know, Wonder Twins with Xi and Trump reopening it, but nothing really definitive other than some soybeans being sold and some H100s, A200s getting sold to Baidu and some of the top folks. So what do and maybe some planes got sold too. So other than a little BD, a little business development is development is development is uh Friedberg, what's the outcome here or was it just a bit performative in your mind?

There was a a question would the administration leave China with a grand deal that made everyone feel like there's a long-range view on a partnership, but I don't think that that's that that's that that's what happened. There were a few announcements obviously around an intention to continue to work together in a cooperative way and find a path to a partnership, an intention to establish additional trade deals and and, you know, there were some purchases of aircraft and and some agricultural product commitments, but fundamentally, the grand deal, the big deal that I would say reduces or de-escalates tension probably didn't manifest as some had hoped it would.

And I don't think it's any surprise that Putin is with Xi today. today. today. And this is also performative that following the US visit, there's now a relationship bonding moment happening between China and Russia. So, the story continues. You know, there is no happy ending and there is no rainbow-colored chapter three in this book. It's going to continue to be a dramatic arc dramatic arc dramatic arc as this rising power continues to challenge the United States. And I think this story continues. Were you expecting a happy ending?

CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I MEAN, TO THE STORY OF THE China visit. Not not I'm not talking about any other things going on in your life, but it seemed like some planes and soybeans got sold, some H100s, perhaps, but it wasn't like there was some grand deal that occurred, but it's nice to see them together, right? I mean, that is nice. I think it was successful. I think there's what you see on the surface and then there's what happens behind closed doors and without speculating too much, I think that it was a useful and productive trip.

I think the the biggest thing that they probably got alignment on is just geopolitically, the tic-tac-toe of what has to happen next and and I think that there's some amount of agreement there. I'm just guessing. Yeah, and so that guess, if I was going to unpack it, hey, we got we have Venezuela, we have Iran and Taiwan. You have lots of things to do. here's here's here's geopolitical chessboard and here's what I would say just very generally. Like it's just I think that there's a um I think that there's a um a way to divide up the game board in a way that helps them and helps us.

Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. [clears throat] [clears throat] [clears throat] Gavin, any thoughts on specifically Nvidia being able to sell more chips into China? Material for the company? Good for America? I mean, it's obviously a pretty debatable issue. I think I disagree with Chamath on this. I think selling selling selling deprecated Nvidia GPUs to China to China to China lowers the odds of them developing their own alternative ecosystem, which would be a lot power hungrier um because you do use optical you bring in optical a lot earlier for scale-up fabrics.

I think there's sound arguments that this is stabilizing for the world and is the best highest probability path for keeping America ahead in AI and kind of keeping control of AI. And that's almost a shame we've had to have this debate because now people like me have said this many times and try to if they didn't understand it, they probably do really understand it. And by the way, that's not to say we shouldn't have had the debate. But um But um But um that is what I believe, you know, reasonable minds can disagree.

No, wait. What Where do you think we disagree? I'm not sure I agree with you. Oh, good. I'm glad we I was going to jump in you start you start with I'm in agreement on No, no, no. I'm like sell everything to them. No, what I was just saying is that there was what you see on the surface of what they can speak to the press, but I think the most important thing was the negotiation of hey, listen, like we're going to do these things, you do these other things.

And that's never going to get put out in a multi, you know, memoed press release. That's my point. That's all I'm saying. Yeah. And I I would just say listen, it like like like America and China talking is only good. We want to avoid the Thucydides trap that has been discussed. And China talks about a lot. They're very aware of it and and and They brought it up. Yes. She brought it up by name. Yeah. Yeah. Talking is a integral step of avoiding this situation. situation.

situation. have to say it's having a nice resolution. I do perspective, like the greatest superpower Trump has is his ability to bond with dictators, monarchs, royal families, Gulf monarchies. He's just great at it. They see eye to eye. They vibe. He has no problem going to see them. He has no problem inviting them to UFC fights. Like this is like if if she comes to the United States and he's sitting courtside with Dana White, like that's when we know things are going to be okay. I do think he's probably given them the green light on like, "Hey, Taiwan's yours.

Just let's not have it during my administration. Maybe like we do a 30-year deal or a 20-year handoff deal." I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happens. Or a 100-year deal or a 200-year deal. But the one thing I would just say that I'm sure was communicated is, "Hey, wars consume a vast amount of oil. You buy your oil from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. Russia alone can supply a fraction of what you need. And now it should be clear to the world Two of the three are off the chessboard.

Yeah, if you Two of three are off the chessboard. If you do something we don't like, like, like, Venezuelan oil, gone for you. American oil, gone. Brazilian oil, gone. And we'll say to all of our good friends in the GCC, "We're so sorry, but we have to close the Strait of Hormuz again." So, Iran, all of Middle Eastern oil, gone for China. Now you just have Russia, and good luck fighting a war with just Russian oil against us, Japan, Japan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, UK, France, Germany, the world.

I mean, who knows about Europe? But for sure Japan would be there. For sure Japan would be there. Oh, and Australia for sure, Korea for sure. Yeah. And so I think it's going to be a more stable world on the other side of Iran. However it resolves, and I think that's nothing but good. Yeah, I think that's a good insight. I think it's a great insight. All right, listen. We miss you Sachs. Come back soon. And Gavin. Big shout out to Bestie Gavin. Thank you. Yeah, you're so great.

Thanks for coming. We appreciate it. Hey, and your father-in-law, what's his name again? Jeff Painter. Jeff Painter. We love you. Thank you so much for all the kind words. We'd love to invite you to come to Liquidity or the Summit. I know you're a big fan of the show. Want to give you a shout out here on the show. show. show. Thanks. I used your fandom of the show to leverage Gavin who was like, "I can't make it today." And I was like, "Tell your father-in-law your father-in-law your father-in-law we're going to get him backstage VIP tickets to the next two events if you show up today.

And if you don't, I'm going to back channel it to him." And all of a sudden Gavin made it to the show. show. show. Love you boys. A little bit of pressure. That's my way of the That's my Hermoine straight. Yeah, so I'm always there for my father-in-law. Absolutely. All right, everybody. We'll see you next time. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. We let your winners ride. Rain Man David Sacks. We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you Bestie. Queen of Canwa.

White white winners ride. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking a piss in your driveway, Sacks. Oh man. Oh man. We should all just get a room and just have a one big huge orgy cuz they're all It's useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Wet your bed. Bed. Wet Wet Wet your bed. Bed. Wet Wet your bed. We need to get mercy. Mercies are back. I'm going all in. in. in.