Listen to Episode

Read Episode Transcript

Is anybody else seeing a half a second lag with J. Cal? Like a second line. Test test, one, two, one, two. From the like the way his mouth moves. Well, that always happens. Oh god, here it comes. His mouth never stops moving. Black sacks. Black sacks. Are we going? We're recording? Are you ready to go? Go ahead and hold it up. Don't lose this. A plus material. Go to the hot sacks, man. Let's go. This is Chappelle at the punchline. Let's go. Let's go. Up ready. We're like your winners, ride. Rainman David Sack. And it said we open sources to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. WS IS Queen of kilowatt. All right, everybody. Welcome to episode 111 of the world's greatest podcast, according to slate. The podcast that shall not be mentioned by the press, apparently. They just did a profile on us. Well, they did. This is the conundrum. It's so much of a phenomenon that were the number one business and the number one tech podcast in the world hands down that the press has a hard time giving us any oxygen because they want to hate us. They want to cover it. You're saying they take the ideas, but not the they don't want to cite it. They don't want to cite it. They don't want to cite it. But anyway, shout out to slate. Yeah, what I thought was interesting was the guy pointed out that we don't want to subject ourselves to independent journalists asking us independent questions. Therefore we go direct. And that's kind of the thing nowadays when everyone says they want to go direct. It's because they don't want to be subject to independent journalists. One might ask themselves why subjects don't want to go direct. Yeah, exactly. You mean, don't want to go to journalists? Yeah, because there's a specific reason why principles, the subject of stories, do not want to have the press interpret what they're saying is because they don't feel they're getting a fair shake. They feel like they're going to be the challenges that then we avoid independent scrutiny over our points of view and our decision. No, we don't. They're constantly writing hip pieces about us. The question is when we want to present our side of it, do we need to go through their filter or not? Why would you go through their filter when it's always going to be a hip piece? Right. They have a class hatred of basically of technology entrepreneurs and investors. It's just your sex. I don't know. Exactly. You're right, Jake, how they don't hate you because you genuinely flex to their political biases. You see, if you do, if you do what SQF did, which is basically agree with all of their biases, then yes, they'll treat you better. That's the deal. That's how it works. And when you say they do, you see the specific large media outlets, right? They all think the same way. She's not referring to Fox and Tucker. No, but you don't. Okay, you can name one. I'll trade you. I'll say what? I'll trade you Fox for MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Atlantic magazine and on and on and on. You get a lot of my ledge out of being able to name Fox. The fact of the matter is, that's a podcast where she's independent now. That's true. You can name one. I mean, literally one outlet that is not part of this mainstream media. And they all think the same way. There are very small differences the way they think. It's all about clicks. It's all about clicks at this point. And it's all about advocacy journalism and advocacy. It's what you're calling advocacy is bias and activism. It's activism. That's what I'm talking about. Activism journalism. Yes. I think the Dremon also highlights a really important point, which is, you know, he started his podcast. It's become one of the most popular forms of sports media. And he can speak directly without the filtering and, you know, classification that's done by the, you know, journalist. And it seems to be a really powerful trend. The audience really wants to hear direct and they want to hear unfiltered raw points of view. And maybe there's still a role for, I think the journalism separate from that, which is to then scrutinize and analyze and question and, you know, journalism is to activism. They're just activists. Look, why does anybody, they're also journalists out there. That's right. Actually, well, it depends what the topic is and what the outlet is. But, but I actually, I would argue that most of these journalists are doing what they're doing for the same reason that we're doing what we're doing, which is that they want to have some kind of influence because they don't get paid very much, right? But the way they have influence is to push a specific political agenda. I mean, they're activists. They're basically, they're basically, they're. They have to become advocacy journalism. Yes. That's a term I coined for it. It's advocacy journalism. I think this brujaha, where Matt and Glacias wrote this article about the Fed and about the debt ceiling. And through this whole multi hundred word, thousand word, home, he didn't understand the difference between a percentage point and the basis point and it can translate the infrastructure. Yeah, I did see that. Wow. So wait a second. You're saying the Fed's raising 25%. Yeah. That's a huge difference between a principle and an outside analyst, right? Like a principle has a better grasp, typically, of the topics and the material. But you know, the argument from a journalist, the art. He's considered, he's considered within the journalist circle. He's considered the conventional wisdom. I get it. But the argument from a journalist is that by having that direct access, that person is also biased because they're an agent because they're a player on the field, they do have a point of view and they do have a direction, they want to take things. So it is a fair commentary that journalists can theoretically play a role, which is they're an off field analyst. And that don't necessarily bring them up. I would argue they're less educated and more biased than we are. That may or may not be true, but the two of you guys are debating, which is a very subjective take. But the thing that is categorical and you can't deny is that there is zero checks and balances when something as simple as the basis point, percentage point difference isn't caught in proofreading, isn't caught by any editor, isn't caught by the people that, you know, help them review this. And so what that says is all kinds of trash must get through because there's no way for the average person on Twitter to police all of this nonsense content. This one was easy because it was so numerically illiterate that it just stood out. But can you imagine the number of unforced errors journalists make today in their search for clicks that don't get caught out that may actually tip somebody to think a versus beat? That's I think the thing that's kind of undeniable. Right. You only need to. You only need to. There's a very simple test for this. If you read the journalists writing about a topic you are an expert on, whatever the topic happens to be, you start to understand, okay, well, on that story I'm reading, that they understand about 10 or 20 or 30% of what's going on. But then when you read stories that you're not involved in, you know, you read a story about Hollywood or I don't know, pick an industry or a region you're not super aware of, you're like, okay, well, that must be 100% correct. And the truth is journalists have access to. There's a name for that. There is a name for it. It's called the Jailman Amnesia Effect. You just played Royce Michael Crichton who came up with that. Yeah. Yeah. But no, he's exactly right. But I think it's worse than that, it's because now the mistakes aren't being driven just by slopingness or laziness or just a lack of expertise. I think it's being driven by an agenda. So just to give you an example on the slate thing, the slate article actually wasn't bad. It kind of made us seem, you know, cool. The sub headline was a close listen to all in the infuriating, fascinating, safe space for Silicon Valley's money men. Okay. But the headline changed. So I don't know if you guys noticed this. The headline now is Elon Musk inner circles telling us exactly what it thinks. First of all, like they're trying to... It's Elon for clicks. Yeah. So they're trying way too hard to like describe us in terms of Elon, which, you know, is maybe two episodes out of 110. But before inner circle, the word they use was cronies. And then somebody edited it because I saw cronies in like one of those tweet, you know, summaries. Mm-hmm. You know where it like, it does a capsule or whatever. Yeah. And those get frozen in time. So you know, they were trying to bash us even harder and then somebody took another look at it and tuned it down. Well, here's what happened. I'll tell you what happens in the editorial process. Whoever writes the article, the article gets submitted, maybe it gets edited, proofread, whatever. Maybe it doesn't even in some publications. They don't have the time for it because they're in a race. Then they picked... There's somebody who's really good at social media. They picked six or seven headlines. They abtests them and they even have software for this where they will run a test. Sometimes they'll do a paid test. They put five dollars in ads on social media, whichever one performs the best, that's the one they go with. So it's even more cynical. Because people who read the headlines, sometimes they don't read the story, right? Obviously most people will see the headline. They interpret that as a story. That's why I told you when they did that new republic piece on you with that horrific monstrosity of illustration. Don't worry about it. People just read the headline. They know you're important. Nobody reads the story. Yeah. But it wasn't about article actually. It was well written actually. Yeah. I was like, who is this writer that actually took the time to write some prose that was actually decent? Yeah, he had listened to a lot of episodes clearly. That was a really good moment actually. That was great advice because you gave it to him and you gave it to me because both of us had these things and Jason said the same thing. Just look at the picture and if you're okay with the picture, just move on. I thought this can't be true. It turned out to mostly be true. Yeah, but my picture was terrible. Yeah, but it's close to reality. He's kind of. Oh, my geez. I mean, I just showed how ridiculous it was. Peter Tiel, more poor Peter. That just shows how ridiculously biased it is, right? I'm sure it was a little bit like you grant. You'll only pull it up one more time here. You'll only look like you grant. Actually, it's kind of he does. He does. Kind of not bad. Kind of looks like you grant and like nodding Hill. I knew that article was going to be fine when the first item they presented as evidence of me doing something wrong was basically helping to house chase a boodine, which was something that was supported by like 70% of San Francisco, which is a 90% Democratic city. So not exactly evidence of some adequate for right-wing movement. Look at the headline. The quiet political rise of David Sachs. So it's a profit of urban too. I'm just letting you know, people don't get past the sixth word in the image. That's 99% of people are like, oh my God, congrats on the Republic article. It could have been little bit Laurel. What do they call them? Laurel Ipsim's. You know, like it could have just been filler words from their second graph down and nobody would know. Yeah. But now apparently if you notice that San Francisco streets look like walking dead that apparently you're a profit of urban too. I mean, people are so out of touch. I mean, they can't even acknowledge what people can see with their own eyes. That's the bias that's gotten crazy. And I don't know if you guys saw this really horrible dystopian video of a art gallery owner who's been dealing with owning a storefront in San Francisco, which was challenging. And having to clean up feces and trash and whatever every day. And I guess the guy snapped and he's hosing down a homeless person who refuses to leave the front of his store. Oh, I saw that. I was just like the humanity in this is just insane. Like really like you're hosing a human being down. It's terrible. Who is obviously not living a great life in this, you know, in dire terms. I can feel for both of them. I can feel for both of them. I agree that it's not good to hose a human being down. On the other hand, think about the sense of frustration that store owner has because he's watching his business go in the toilet because he's got homeless people living in front of him. And they both like being mistreated. The homeless person being mistreated. The homeless person being mistreated. The homeless person being mistreated. The homeless person being mistreated. The store owner is being mistreated by the city of San Francisco. Yeah. Same with that. The person is not in a privileged position. That person probably the store owner, the store owner, he's probably fighting to stay in business. I'm not saying that's right, but I think I'm laying the rope. No, I'm just saying. I mean, you're trying to do what you're trying to do is, oh my God, look at this, this homeless person being horribly oppressed. No, that store owner is a victim too. Yeah, there's no doubt. It's horrible to run a business in that person's supposed to do. No, this is this is symbolic of the breaking down of basic society. Like these both of these people are obviously like, it's just a horrible moment to even witness. It's like, it's like something Jason, do you have equal empathy for the store owner and the homeless person or no? Under no circumstances, should you hose a person down in the face who is homeless? Like it's just horrific to watch. It's just inhumane. This is a human being. Now, but as a person who owns a store, yeah, my dad grew up in the local business. If people were abusing the store, you're trying to make a living and you've got to clean up, you know, whatever, excrement every day, which a person is. It's horrific, yes, and this thing is just a moment. In that moment, the empathy is not equal. I think you have more empathy, obviously, for the person on the receiving end of that hose. Okay. But in general, our society has tons of empathy from homeless people. We spend billions of dollars trying to solve that problem. You never hear a thing about the store owners who are going out of business. So on a societal level, you know, not in that moment, but in general, the lack of empathy is for these middle class store owners who may not be middle class working class, who are struggling to stay afloat. And you look at something like, what is it? Like a quarter or a third of the storefronts in San Francisco are now vacant. I'll be shocked. The person is running the shocking thing is like this person is running an art gallery storefront in San Francisco. Like, why would you even bother? Why would you bother to have a storefront in San Francisco? I mean, everybody's left. It's just, what do you mean why do you bother? If you soak them to stores, what are you supposed to start to code all of us? Nothing. Well, no, I mean, you would shut it down at some point and find an exit and do like all businesses. Yeah, but the store has large fixed costs, right? So that may be the first thing you made 10 years ago. Exactly. At some point, you have to shut down your store in San Francisco. The second you can get out of the room. The solution to everything, Jake, hell isn't go to coding school online and then, you know, I don't want to say it for good. But moving to another city is a possibility. So true. A lot of folks in Silicon Valley, I think in this weirdly fucked up way, do believe the solution to everything is learn to code. Or become a mover driver or, yeah, learn to code. Learn to code. Get a good job. Get a good job. The guy spent years building his retail business. I mean, the thing is, he was person camps in front and the homeless, and he calls the police, the police don't come and move the homeless person. The homeless person stays there. He asks nicely to move customers or uncomfortable going into the store as a result. Yeah, I stopped going to certain stores in my neighborhood because of homeless tents being literally fixated in front of the store and I'd go to the store down the road to get my groceries or whatever. It's not a kind of uncommon situation for a lot of these small business owners. They don't own the real estate. They're paying rent. They've got high labor costs. You know, everything's in flating. Generally, city population is declining. It's a brutal situation all around. I think if everybody learns to code or drives a new bird, the problem is that in the absence of things like local stores and small businesses, you hollow out communities. Yeah. You have these random detached places where you kind of live and then you sit in your house which becomes a prison while you order food from an app every day. I don't think that is the society that people want. So I don't know. I kind of want small businesses to exist. And I think that the homeless person should be taken care of. But the small business person should have the best chance of trying to be successful because it's hard enough as it is. The mortality rate of the small business owner is already 90%. That's impossible in San Francisco, I just be honest. So stop genuine reflecting, Jake, I'll stop trying to push people to listen. I you are because here's how I'm saying the guy, I'm just shocked that the guy even has a storefront. I would have left a lot of time. You're sharing a tweet that's a moment in time and you're not showing the 10 steps that led up to it. Oh, a thousand steps. The five times he called the police to do something about it. I bring it as dystopian from the last customers. The stuff that freebergant you're all through just talking about. Maybe there was physical conflict that we didn't see in that, you know, and he's resolving it. It's not. It's really hard to look at these videos and know what's going on. It's awful to see, but man, we don't know. It's the whole thing. It's not awful. You want to know another reason why we can't solve this problem. It's the language we use around it. The fundamental problem here is not homeless. No, it's addiction. It's addiction. You see because it's mental illness. Shellingberg is done the work. It's like, he said 99% of the people he talks to. It's either mental illness or addiction. But we keep using this word homeless to describe the problem. But the issue here is not the lack of housing, although that's a separate problem in California, but it's basically the lack of treatment. Totally. So we should be calling them treatment lists. And mandates around this because... Well, and enforcement. You can't have a super drug be available for a nominal price and give people a bunch of money to come here and take it and not enforce it. You have to draw the line. That's fentanyl. Sorry. Fentanyl is a super drug. Less three alternatives is mandated rehab, mandated mental health or jail or housing services. If you're not breaking the law, you don't have mental illness. You don't have drug addiction. And then provide those are the four paths of outcome here of success. And if all four of those paths were both mandated and available in abundance, this could be a tractable problem. Unfortunately, the mandate... I mean, you guys remember that Kevin Bacon movie? Kevin Bacon was locked up in a mental institution, but he wasn't mentally ill. It's a famous story. It's a famous... What's that? No, no. A famous story. You guys... Someone's probably going to call the immediate for messing this whole thing up. But I think there's a story where mandated mental health services, like locking people up to take care of them when they have mental health issues like this, became kind of inhumane. And a lot of the institutions were shut down and a lot of the laws were overturned. And there are many of these cases that happened where they came across as like torturous to what happened to people that weren't mentally ill. And so the idea was like, let's just abandon me. Oh, one proof of our co-pouch nest? You think I'm a one proof of my co-pouch nest? Yeah. Well, that's another one, right? And it's unfortunate, but I think that there's some... We talk a lot about nuance in gray areas, but there's certainly some solution here that isn't black or white. It's not about not having mandated mental health services. And it's not about locking everyone up that has some slight problem. But there's some solution here that needs to be crafted where you don't let people suffer and you don't let people suffer both as the victim on the street, but also the victim of the community. We're talking about 5150, I think, like when people are held. But if there are danger to themselves or others kind of thing. Right. But Jay, I think about the power of language here. If we refer to these people as untreated persons, instead of homeless persons, and that was the coverage, 24-7 in the media, this is an untreated person. The whole policy prescription would be completely different. We'd realize there's a shortage of treatment. We'd realize there's a shortage of remedies related to getting people in treatment, as opposed to building housing. But why... And laws that mandate it that don't enable it. Because if you don't mandate it, then you enable the free reign and the free living on the street and the open drug markets and all this sort of stuff. There's a really easy test for this. If it was yourself and you were addicted, or if it was a loved one, or your media family members, would you want yourself or somebody else to be picked up off the street and held with a 5150 or whatever code involuntarily against their will because they were a danger. Would you want them to be allowed to remain on the street? Would you want yourself if you were in that dire straits? And the answer, of course, is you would want somebody to intervene. What's the liberal policy perspective on this, J. Cal? So let me ask you as our diehard liberal on this show. No, I'm not a diehard liberal. Like no. No, you're independent and only vote for Democrats. Please get it right. 75% of the time I voted Democrat. 25% of the time I'm right. Please get it right. Independent votes for Democrats. Okay. 25% Republicans. Is it not that your individual liberties aren't arranged upon if you were to be, quote, picked up and put away? My position on it is if you're not thinking straight and you're high on fentanyl and you're not thinking for yourself and you could lose the liberty for a small period of time, 72 hours a week, especially if you're a danger to somebody, you know, yourself or other people. And in this case, if you're on fentanyl, if you're on meth, you're a danger to... I mean, I think if more people had that, if more people had that point of view and had that debate of sex is saying in a more open way, you could get to some path to resolution on... Just not in the San Francisco. It's not how it happens. You guys know this, we won't say who it is, but someone in my family has some pretty severe mental health issues. And the problem is because they're an adult, you can't get them to get any form of treatment whatsoever. Right. Right. Right. You only have the nuclear option and the nuclear option is you basically take that person to court and try to seize their power of attorney, which is essentially saying that, you know, individual liberties are gone. Yeah. But it is so unbelievably restrictive what happens if you lose that power of attorney and somebody else has it over you. It's just a huge burden that the legal system makes extremely difficult. And the problem is a backstop. You know, if the person's committing something illegal, like camping out or doing fentanyl, meth, whatever, you can use the law as the backstop, you know, against personal law. All that person can do is really get arrested. Even that is not a high enough bar to actually get power of attorney over somebody. The other thing that I just wanted you guys to know, I think you know this, but just a little historical context is a lot of this crisis in mental health started because Reagan defunded all the psychiatric hospitals. He emptied them in California. And that compounded because for whatever reason, his ideology was that these things should be treated in a different way. And when he got to the presidency, one of the things that he did was he repealed the mental health, I think it's called the mental health systems act, M-HSA, which completely broke down some pretty landmark legislation on mental health. And it's, and I don't think we've ever really recovered. And that's where now 42 years onward from 1980, but or 43 years onward, but there's something for you guys to know that that's, that's, that's, that's, Reagan had a lot of positives. But that's one definitely negative check in my book against his legacy is his stance on mental health in general. And what he did to defund mental health. Well, let me, let me make two points there. So I'm, I'm not defending that specific decision. There were a bunch of scandals in the 1970s and epitomized by the movie One Flu over the Kukus-Nesla of Jack Nicholson about the conditions in these mental health homes. And that did create a groundswell to change the laws around that. But I think this idea that like somehow Reagan is to blame when he hasn't been in office for 50 years, as opposed to the politicians who've been in office for the last 20 years, I just think it's letting them off the hook. I mean, Gavin Newsom, 10, 15 years ago when he was mayor of San Francisco declared that he would end homelessness within 10 years, he just made another declaration like that as governor. So I just feel like, I'm not saying it's Reagan's fault. I'm just saying, I just, I just think historical moment. I think it's letting, I think it's letting the politicians off the hook. Society needs to start thinking about changing priorities. We didn't have this problem of massive numbers of people living on the streets 10, 15 years ago. It was a much smaller problem. And I think a lot of us do with fentanyl, the power of these drugs has increased massively. There's other things going on here. So in any event, I mean, you can question what Reagan did in light of current conditions. But I think this problem really started in the last 10, 15 years. It's like in an order of magnitude bigger way. These are super drugs until people realize like these are a different class of drugs and they start treating them as such. It's going to just get worse. There's no other path. Oh, as far as I know, Reagan didn't hand out to these addicts, $800 a week to feed their addictions they can live on the streets in Francisco. That is the current policy of the city. I hear you, Arnold. Arnold, all I just wanted to just provide was just that color that we had a system of funding for the mental health infrastructure, particularly local mental health infrastructure. And we took that back and then we never came forward. And all I was saying is I'm just telling you. I look at the question, that's part of the solution here is yeah, we're going to have to basically build up shelters. We're going to have to build up. And to support your point. The problem now, for example, is Gavin Newsom says a lot of these things. And now he's gone from a massive surplus to a $25 billion deficit overnight, which we talked about even a year ago because that was just the law of numbers catching up with the state of California. And he's not in a position now to do any of this stuff. So this one's problem may get worse. Well they did appropriate. I forget the number. It's like 10 billion or something out of that huge budget they had to solve the problem homelessness. I would just argue they're not tackling it in the right way because what happened is there's a giant special interest that formed around this problem, which is the building industry who gets these contracts to build the quote, you know, affordable housing or the homeless industrial complex. And so they end up building 10 units at a time on Venice Beach, like the most expensive land you could possibly build because you get these contracts from the government. So there's now a giant special interest in lobby that's formed around this. If you really want to solve the problem, you wouldn't be building housing on Venice Beach. You'd be going to cheap land just outside the city. Totally. And you'd be building scale shelters. I mean, shelters that can house 10,000 people, not 10. And you'd be having treatment services. And they're also having a treatment, yes, yeah, treatment. But when treatment built into them, right, you'd be solving this problem at scale. And that's not what they're doing. By the way, do you guys want to hear this week in Gryft? Oh, sure. We're all in. That's a great example of Gryft. I read something today in Bloomberg that was unbelievable. There's about $2 trillion of debt owned by the developing world that has been classified by a nonprofit, the Nature Conservancy, in this case, as eligible for what they called Nature Swaps. So this is 2 trillion of the umpteen trillions of debt that's about to get defaulted on by countries like Belize, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, Seychelles, you name it. And what happens now are the big bulge bracket Wall Street banks and the Nature Conservancy goes to these countries and says, listen, you know, you have a billion dollar trunch of debt that's about to go upside down and you're going to be in default with the IMF. We'll let you off the hook. And you know, we will negotiate with those bondholders to give them 50 cents on the dollar. And in return, you have to promise to take some of that savings and, you know, protect the rainforest or protect a coral reef or protect some mangrove trees. All sounds good. Except then what these folks do is they take that repackaged debt. They call it ESG. They market back up and then they sell it to folks like BlackRock who have decided that they must own this in the portfolio. So it literally just goes from one sleeve of BlackRock, which is now marked toxic emerging market debt. And then it gets into someone's 401k as ESG debt. Is that unbelievable? So you could virtually say no and buy some ESG to make a shelf feel good. Two trillion dollars. There's a ESG about ESG is that Exxon is like the number seven like top-ranked company according to ESG and Tesla is even on the list. Disasters. Right. It's a complete scheme. All of those, we said this many times, but each of those letters individually mean so much and should be worth a lot to a lot of people. But when you stick them together, it creates this toxic soup where you can just hide the cheese. Yeah. I mean governance is important in companies. Of course, the environment is important. Social change is important. I mean, but why are these things grouped together in this? It's just perverse in industry. It's an industry of Greft. Absolutely. All right. Speaking of Greft's Microsoft is going to put $10 billion or something into chat GPT, G Generate AI as I'm calling it now is the hottest thing in Silicon Valley. The technology is incredible. I mean, you can question the business model, maybe, but the technology is pretty well. I mean, yes. So what I'd say is $29 billion for a company that's losing $1 billion in Azure credits a year. That's one way to work at it. It's also a naive way to look at a lot of other businesses that ended up being worth a lot down the road. I mean, sure. You can model out the future of a business like this and create a lot of really compelling big outcomes. You know, potentially. Yeah. So Microsoft is the lowest investing $10 billion in OpenAI in a very convoluted transaction that people are trying to understand. It turns out that they might wind up owning 59% of OpenAI, but gets 75% of the cash in the process back over time. 49% 49% yeah of OpenAI, but they would get paid back the $10 billion over some amount of time. And this obviously includes Azure credits and chat GPT as everybody knows this just incredible demonstration of what AI can do in terms of text-based creation of content and answering queries. And it's taken the net by storm people are really inspired by it. It's actually you think that this is a defensible real technology. Do you think this is like a crazy hype cycle? Well, it's definitely the next VC hype cycle. Everyone's kind of glomming on to this because VC really right now needs a savior. Just look at the public markets. Everything we're investing in is in the toilets. So we all really want to believe that this is going to be the next wave. And just because something is a VC hype cycle doesn't mean that it's not true. So as I think one of our friends pointed out, you know, mobile turned out to be very real. I think cloud turned out to be, I'd say very real. Social was sort of real in the sense that it did lead to a few big winners. On the other hand, Web 3 and crypto was a hype cycle. It's turned into a big bus. VR falls into the hype cycle that didn't realize. Probably a hype cycle so far, no one can even explain what Web 3 is. In terms of AI, I think that if I had to guess, I would say the hype is real in terms of its technological potential. However, I'm not sure about how much potential there is yet for VCs to participate. Because right now, it seems like this is something that's going to be done by really big companies. So open AI is basically a... It looks like a kind of a Microsoft proxy. You've got Google, I'm sure we'll develop it through their deep mind asset. You know, I'm sure Facebook is going to do something huge in AI. So what I don't know is, is this really a platform that starts going to be able to benefit from? I will say that some of the companies we invested in are starting to use these tools. So I guess where I am is, I think the technology is actually exciting. I wouldn't go overboard on the valuations. I wouldn't buy into that level of the hype. But you think there could be hundreds of companies built around an API for something like ChatGBT, Dolly. Maybe. Yeah, I don't think startups are going to be able to create the AI themselves, but they might be able to benefit from the APIs. That's the thing that has to be proven out. There's a lot of really fantastic machine learning services available through Cloud vendors today, right? So Azure has been one of these kind of vendors and obviously open AI is building tools a little bit further down on the stack. But there's a lot of tooling that can be used for specific vertical applications. Obviously, the acquisition of InstaDeep by BioNTech is a really solid example. And most of the big dollars that are flowing in BioNTech right now are flowing into machine learning applications where there's some vertical application of machine learning tooling and techniques around some specific problem set. And the problem set of mimicking human communication and doing generative media is a consumer application set that has a whole bunch of really interesting product opportunities. But let's not kind of be blind to the fact that nearly every other industry and nearly every other vertical is being transformed today. And there's active progress being made in funding and getting liquidity on companies and progress with actual products being driven by machine learning systems. And there's a lot of great examples of this. So the fundamental capabilities of large data sets and then using these kind of learning techniques in software and statistical models to make kind of predictions and drive businesses forward in a way that they're not able to with just human knowledge and human capability alone is really real. And it's here today. And so I think let's not get caught up in the fact that there's this really interesting consumer market hype cycle going on where these tools are not being kind of validated and generating real value across many other verticals and segments. Shmoth, when you look at this Microsoft OpenAI ideal and you see something that's this convoluted hard to understand, what does that signal to you as a capital allocator and company builder? You put deals into two categories. One is easy and straightforward and then two is you know, cute by half or you know, the two hard bucket. This is clearly in that second category. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't that category. Well, it doesn't mean that it won't work in our group chat with the rest of the guys. One person said there's a lot of complex law when you go from a nonprofit to a for profit. There's lots of complexity in deal construction, the original investors have certain things that they want to see. There may or may not be legal issues at play here that you encapsulated well in the last episode. I think there's a lot of stuff we don't know. So I think it's important to just like give those folks the benefit of the doubt. But yeah, if you're asking me, it's in the two hard bucket for me to really take seriously. Now that being said, it's not like I got shown the deal. So I can't I can't comment. Here's what I will say. The first part of what SAC said, I think is really important for entrepreneurs to internalize, which is where can we make money? The reality is that well, let me just take a prediction. I think that Google will open source their models because the most important thing that Google can do is reinforce the value of search. And the best way to do that is to scorch the earth with these models, which is to make them widely available and as free as possible. That will cause Microsoft to have to catch up and that will cause Facebook to have to really look in the mirror and decide whether they're going to cap the betting that they've made on ARVR and reallocate very aggressively to AI. I mentioned this in the I did this Lex Friedman podcast, but that should be what Facebook does. The reason is if Facebook and Google and Microsoft have roughly the same capability and the same model, there's an element of machine learning that I think is very important, which is called reinforcement learning and specifically it's reinforcement learning from human feedback. So these RLHF pipelines, these are the things that will make your stuff unique. So if you're a startup, you can build a reinforcement learning pipeline. How? A product that captures a bunch of usage, we talked about this before. That data set is unique to you as a company. You can feed that into these models, get back better answers, you can make money from it. Facebook has an enormous amount of reinforcement learning inside of Facebook, every click, every comment, every like, every share. Twitter has that data set. Google inside of Gmail and search. Microsoft inside of Minecraft and Hotmail. Now my point is, David's right, the huge companies I think will create the substrates. And I think there'll be forced to scorch the earth and give it away for free. And then on top of that is where you can make money and I would just encourage entrepreneurs to think where is my edge in creating a data set that I can use for reinforcement learning? That I think is interesting. That's kind of saying I buy the ingredients from the supermarket. But then I can still construct a dish that's unique. And the salt is there, the pepper is there. But how I use that will determine whether you like the thing or not. And I think that is the way that I think we need to start thinking about it. Interestingly, as we've all pointed out here, Open AI was started as a non-profit. The stated philosophy was this technology is too powerful for any company to own. Therefore, we're going to make it open source. And then somewhere in the last couple of years they said, well, you know what? Actually it's too powerful for it to be out there in the public. We need to make this a private company and we need to get $10 billion from Microsoft. That is the disconnect I am trying to understand. That's the most interesting part of the story, Jason. I think if you go back to 2014 is when Google bought DeepMind. And immediately everyone started reacting to a company as powerful as Google, having a toolkit and a team as powerful as DeepMind within them and that sort of power should not sit in anyone's hands. I heard people that I'm close with that are close to the organization and the company comment that they thought this is the most scary, threatening, biggest threat to humanity is Google's control of DeepMind. And that was a naive point of view. But it was one that was deeply held by a lot of people. So Reid Hoffman, Peter Teal, Elon Musk, a lot of these guys funded the original Open AI business in 2015. And here's the link. So I'm putting it out here. You guys can pull up the original blog post. Do all those don't people who donated get stock in? So what happened was they were on it. It was all in a nonprofit. And then the nonprofit owns stock in a commercial business now. But your point is interesting because at the beginning, the idea was instead of having Google on all of this will make it all available. And here's the statement from the original blog post in 2015, Open AI is a nonprofit AI research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact. And they kind of went on in the whole thing about Sam, Greg, Elon Reid, Jessica, Peter Teal, AWS, YC, are all donating to support Open AI, including donations and commitments of over a billion dollars, although we expect that to only be a tiny fraction of what we will spend in the next few years, which is a really interesting kind of, if you look back, historical perspective on how this thing all started seven years ago and how quickly it's evolved as you point out into the necessity to have a real commercial alignment to drive this thing forward without seeing any of these models open sourced. And during that same period of time, we've seen Google share Alpha Fold and share a number of tips or predictive models and toolkits and make them publicly available and put them in Google's cloud. And so there's both kind of tooling and models and outputs of those models that Google has open sourced and made freely available. And meanwhile, Open AI has kind of diverged into this deeply profitable, profit seeking kind of enterprise model. And when you invest in Open AI in the round that they did before, you could generate a financial return, capped at 100x, which is still a pretty amazing financial return. You put a billion dollars in, you can make a hundred billion dollars. That's funding a real commercial endeavor at that point. Well, and then to... It is the most striking question about this whole thing about what's going on in AI. And it's one that you once talked about publicly and others have kind of sat on one side or the other, which is that AI offers a glimpse into one of the biggest and most kind of existential threats to humanity. And the question we're all going to be tackling and the battle that's going to be happening politically and regulatory-wise. And perhaps even between nations and the years to come is who owns the AI, who owns the models, what can they do with it, and what are we legally going to be allowed to do with it? And this is a really important part of that story. To build on what you're saying, I just put in pie torch. People don't know. That's another framework. P-Y-T-O-R-C-H. This was, you know, a large rebuilt inside a Facebook and then Facebook said, hey, you want to democratize machine learning. And they made, and I think they put a bunch of executives. They may have even funded those executives to go work on this open source project. So they have a huge stake in this and they went very open source with it. And then TensorFlow, which you have an investment in, Trimoth, TensorFlow was inside of, I don't have it. Investment in TensorFlow. We did a TensorFlow. The public source came out of Google and then you invested in another company. We were building silicon for machine learning. That's different. Right. But it's based on TensorFlow. No, no, no, no. The founder of this company was the founder of TensorFlow. Oh, God. It's not, sorry, not of TensorFlow, part of me, of TPU, which was Google's internal silicon that they built to accelerate TensorFlow. Right. If that makes sense. And so that's the, you know, I don't mean to be cynical about the whole project or not, it's just the confounding part of this of what is happening here. It reminds me, I don't know if you remember this, the biggest opportunity here. The biggest opportunity here is for Facebook. I mean, they need to get in this conversation. ASAP. I mean, to think that like, look, PyTorch was like a pretty seminal piece of technology that a lot of folks in AI and machine learning were using for a long time. TensorFlow before that. And what's so funny about like Google and Facebook is they're a little bit kind of like they're not really making that much progress. I mean, Facebook released this kind of like rando version of Alpha Fold recently. It's not that good. I think these companies really need to get these products in the wild as soon as possible. It cannot be the case that you have to email people and get on some list. I mean, this is Google and Facebook, guys. Come on. Get going. I think the big innovation of OpenAI sacks to bring you in the conversation, they actually made an interface and let the public play with it to the tune of $3 million a day in cloud credits or costs. Which by the way, just on that, my son was telling me, he's like, hey, Dad, do you want me to tell you when the best time to use chat GPT is I'm like, huh? He's like, yeah, my friends and I have tried. We've been using it so much. We've known now when we can actually get resources. Oh, wow. And it's such an interesting thing. We're like a 13 year old kid knows, you know, when it's mostly compute intensive, that it's unusable and when to come back and use it. When the last time sacks, the technology became this mainstream and captured people's imagination, this broadly. It's been a while. I don't know. Maybe the iPhone or something. Yeah. Look, it's powerful. There's no question it's powerful. I mean, I'm of two minds about it because whenever something is the hype cycle, I just reflexively want to be skeptical of it. But on the other hand, we have made a few investments in this area. And I mean, I think it is powerful and it's going to be an enabler of some really cool things to come. There's no question about it. I have two pieces of more insider information. One, I have a chat GPT iOS app on my phone, one of the nice folks at OpenAI, including me in the test flight. And it's the simplest interface you've ever seen. But basically you type in your question, but it keeps your history. And then you can search your history. So it looks, sacks like you're in iMessage, basically, and it has your threads. And so I asked, hey, what are the best restaurants in Yantville, a town near Napa? And then I said, which one has the best duck? And it literally like gave me a great answer. And then I thought, wait a second, why is this not using a Siri or Alexa like interface? And then why isn't it? Oh, here's a video of it. I gave the video to Nick. By the way, Jason, this, what you're doing right now is you're creating a human feedback reinforcement learning pipeline for chat GPT. So just the fact that you asked that question. And over time, if chat GPT has access to your GPS information and then knows that you went to restaurant A versus B, it can intuit. And it may actually prompt you to ask, hey, Jason, we noticed you were in the area. Did you go to Botega? If you did, how would you rate it one through five? That reinforcement learning now allows the next person that asks, what are the top five restaurants to say, well, you know, over a thousand people, that have asked this question, here's actually the best answer versus a generic rank of the open web, which is what the first data set is. That's what's so interesting about this. So this is why if you're a company that already owns the eyeballs, you have to be running to get this stuff out there. Well, and then this answer, you know, cited Yelp, well, this is the first time I've actually seen chat GPT site. And this is, I think, a major legal breakthrough. He didn't put a link in, but if it's going to use Yelp's data, I don't know if they have permission for me out, but it's quoting Yelp here. It should link to French, Longie, Botega, and Bouchon. Bouchon actually has the best config for the record. And I did have that ducts. So I asked this afterwards to see, you know, in a scenario like this, but it could also, if I was talking to it, I could say, hey, which one has availability this afternoon or tomorrow for dinner and make the phone call for me like Google Assistant does or any number of. Speaking about next tasks, this was an incredibly powerful display in a 1.0 product. I was thinking about what you said last week. And I thought back to the music industry in the world of Napster. And what happened was there was a lot of musicians. I think Metallica being the most famous one, famously suing Napster because it was like, hey, listen, like you're allowing people to take my content, which they would otherwise pay for. And if you think about the economic damage that I can measure, that legal argument was meaningful enough that ultimately Napster was shut down. Now there are other versions of that that folks created, including us at WinAmp. We created a headless version of that. But if you translate that problem set here. Is there a claim that Yelp can make in this example that they're losing money. That, you know, if you were going through Google or if you are going through their app, the sponsored link revenue and the advertising revenue that they would have got that they wouldn't get from here. Now, that doesn't mean that chat GPT can't figure that out, but it's those kinds of problems that are going to be a little thorny in these next few years that have to really get figured out. This is a further further overview. If you're a human reading every review on Yelp about duck, then you could write a blog post in which you say many reviewers on Yelp say that Bouchard has the best duck. So the question is, is GPT held to that standard or something different? And is linking to it enough? This is the question that I'm asking. I don't know. It should be because I'll argue it should be because if you look at the four part test for fair use, which I had to go through because blogging had the same issue, we would write a blog post and we would mention Walt Mossberg's review of a product in somebody else's. And then people would say, oh, I don't need to read Walt Mossberg's in Needle Wall Street Journal subscription. And we say, well, we're doing an original work. We're comparing two or three different human is comparing two or three different reviews and we're adding something to it. It's not interfering with Walt Mossberg's ability to get subscribers in the Wall Street Journal. But the effect on the potential market is one of the four tests. And just reading from Stanford's quote on fair use, another important fair use factor is whether you're used to prives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work to priving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true, even if you are not competing directly with the original work. And we'll put the link to Stanford here. This is the key issue. And I would not use Yelp. In this example, I would not open the Yelp app, Yelp would get no commerce and Yelp would lose this. So chat GPT and all these services must use citations of where they got the original work. They must link to them and they must get permission. That's where this is all going to shake out. And I believe that's... You can get a big enough data set if you have to get permission in advance, right? You have to go out and go, sure. It's going to be the large data sets. Quora, Yelp, the App Store reviews, Amazon's reviews. So there are large corpses of data that you would need. Like Craigslist has famously never allowed anybody to scrape Craigslist. The amount of data inside Craigslist, as but one example of a data set would be extraordinary to build chat GPT on. Chat GPT is not allowed to because you brought up robots.txt last week. There's going to need to be an AI.txt. Are you allowed to use my data set in AI and under and how will I be compensated for it? I'll allow you to use Craigslist, but you have to link to the original post and you have to note that. The other great area that isn't there today but may emerge is when section 230 gets rewritten because if they take the protections away for the Facebook and the Google's of the world for the basically for being an algorithmic publisher and saying an algorithm is equivalent to a publisher. What it essentially saying is that an algorithm is kind of like doing the work of a human in a certain context and I wonder whether that's also an angle here, which now this algorithm which today, David, you use, you said the example. I read all these blog posts. I write something. If an algorithm does it, maybe can you then say no, actually there was intent there that's different than if a human were to do it. I don't know. My point is very complicated issues that are going to get sorted out. I think the problem with the hype cycle is that you're going to have to marry it with an economic model for VCs to really make money. Right now there's just too much betting on the come. To the extent you're going to invest, it makes sense that you put money into open AI because that's safe. The economic model of how you make money for everybody else is so unclear. Right. It's clear, actually. I have it for business. I just signed up for ChatGPT Premium. They had a survey that they shared on their Discord server and I filled out the survey and they did a price discovery survey, Freeberg. What's the least you would pay, the most you would pay? What would be too cheap of a price for ChatGPT Pro and what would be too high of a price? I put it in like 50 bucks a month would be what I would pay. I was just thinking imagine ChatGPT allowed you, Freeberg, to have a Slack channel called Research and you could go in there or anytime you're in Slack, you do Slash Chat or Slash ChatGPT and you say, Slash ChatGPT, tell me, what are the venues available in which we did this actually for, I did this for venues for all in sub-active. What are the venues that seed over 3,000 people in Vegas and it just gave us the answer? Okay, well that was the job of the local event planner. They had that list. Now you can pull that list from a bunch of different sources. I mean, what would you pay for that? A lot. Well, I think one of the big things that's happening is all the old business models don't make sense anymore in a world where the software is no longer just doing what it's done for the last 60 years, which is what is historically defined as information retrieval. So you have this kind of hierarchical storage of data that you have some index against and then you go and you search and you pull data out and then you present that data back to the customer or the user of the software. That's effectively been how all kind of data has been utilized in all systems for the past 60 years in computing, largely what we've really done is kind of built an evolution of application layers or software tools to interface with the fetching of that data, the retrieval of that data and the display of that data. But what these systems are now doing, what AI type systems or machine learning systems now do is the synthesis of that data and the representation of some synthesis of that data to you, the user in a way that doesn't necessarily look anything like the original data that was used to make that synthesis. And that's where business models like a Yelp, for example, or like a web crawler that crawls the web and then presents web page directories to you. Those sorts of models no longer make sense in a world where the software, the signal to noise is now greater, the signal is greater than the noise in being able to present to you a synthesis of that data and basically resolve what your objective is with your own consumption and interpretation of that data, which is how you historically use these systems. And I think that's where there's going back to the question of the hype cycle. I don't think it's about being a hype cycle. I think it's about the investment opportunity against fundamentally rewriting all compute tools because if all compute tools ultimately can use this capability in their interface and in their modeling, then it very much changes everything. And one of the advantages that I think businesses are going to latch onto, which we talked about historically, is novelty in their data in being able to build new systems and new models that aren't generally available. Exactly. In biotech and pharma, for example, having screening results from very expensive experiments and running lots of experiments and having a lot of data against those experiments gives a company an advantage in being able to do things like drug discovery. We're going to talk about that in a minute versus everyone using publicly known screening libraries or publicly available protein modeling libraries and then screening against those and then everyone's got the same candidates and the same targets and the same clinical objectives that they're going to try and resolve from that output. So I think novelty and data is one way that advantage kind of arises. But really, that's just kind of where's their edge. But fundamentally, every business model can and will need to be rewritten that's dependent on the historical, on the legacy of kind of information retrieval as the core of what computing is used to do. Sacks on my other podcast I was having a discussion with Molly about legal profession. What impact would it be if Chan G.P.T. took every court case, every argument, every document, and somebody took all of those legal cases on the legal profession and then the filing of a lawsuit, the defending of a lawsuit, public defenders, prosecutors. What data could you figure out? And then just to think of the recent history, you look at Chesa Boudin, you could literally take every case, every argument he did, put it through it and say, you know, versus an outcome in another state and you could figure out what's actually going on with this technology. What impact could this have on the legal field that you are a non-practicing attorney? You know, a legal degree. I never practiced other than one summer at a law firm. But no, I think you passed the bar. I did pass the bar. Yes, yes, I did. First try. Yes, of course. First try. Of course, yes, yes. I'm ready to take a look at his eyes. Yes, I went to Stanford, dude. I've rated 18 hundred. It's a day of the same company. I'm not a good thing, I'm not a good thing, I mean, I may not have passed the bar, but I know a little shit enough to know that you can't be a good one. No, look, I would be curious in terms of- A very common question that an associate at a law firm would get asked would be something like, you know, summarize the legal precedence in favor of X, right? And that, you could imagine GPD doing that like instantly. Now I think the question about that, I think there's two questions. One is, can you prompt GPD in the right way to get the answer you want? And I think, you know, Tremoth, you shared a really interesting video showing that people are developing some skills around knowing how to ask GPD questions in the right way. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. So, it's not clear to me that a command line interface is the best way of doing that. I could imagine apps developing that create more of like a GUI. So we're an investor, for example, on copy AI, which is doing this for copy writers and marketers, helping them write blog posts and emails. And so, you know, imagine putting that like, you know, GUI on top of Chad GPT. They've already been kind of doing this. So I think that's part of it. I think the other part of it is on the answer side, you know, how accurate it is. It is. Because in some professions, having 90 or 95 or 99% accuracy is okay. But in other professions, you need six Nines accuracy, meaning 99.999% accuracy. Okay. So I think for a lawyer going into court, you know, you probably need, I don't know, I mean, depends on the brain. Yeah, it's a part of the question. I can take it versus a murder trial. It's two very different things. Yeah, exactly. So is 99% accuracy good enough? Is 95% accuracy good enough? I would say probably for a court case, 95% is probably not good enough. I'm not sure GPT is at even 95% yet. But could it be helpful? I could could could the associate start with Chad GPT, get an answer and then validate it? Probably, yeah. If you had a bunch of associates bang on some law model for a year, again, that's that reinforcement learning we just talked about. I think you'd get precision recall off the charts and it would be perfect. By the way, just a cute thing. I don't know if you guys got this email. It came about an hour ago from Reed Hoffman and Reed said to me, H.Moth, I created fire side chatbots, a special podcast mini series where I will be having a set of conversations with Chad GPT. So you can go to YouTube, by the way, and see Reed having, and he's a very smart guy, so this should be kind of cool. And by the way, Chad GPT will have an AI-generated voice powered by the text to speech platform play.ht. Go to YouTube if you want to see Reed have a conversation with Chad GPT. I mean, Tremoth, we have a conversation with the two Davids every week. What's the difference? We know how this is going to turn out. Hey, actually synthesizing Tremoth's point about reinforcement learning with something you said, Jake Allen, or Chad, which I actually thought was pretty smart. Well, that's first. Yeah, so I'm going to give you credit here because I don't think you've said it on this episode, which is you said that these open AI capabilities are going to eventually become commoditized or certainly much more widely available. I don't know if that means that they'll be totally commoditized or there'll be four players, but there'll be multiple players that offer them. And you said the real advantage will come from applications that are able to get a hold of proprietary data sets and then use those proprietary data sets to generate insights and then layering on what Tremoth said about reinforcement learning. If you can be the first out there in a given vertical with a proprietary data set and then you get the advantage, the mode of reinforcement learning, that would be the way to create I think a sustainable business. Just to build on what you said, this week is the JP Morgan conference. Friedberg mentioned it last week. I did her on Wednesday with this really interesting company based in Zurich. What they have is basically a library of ligands. These ligands are used as a substrate to deliver all kinds of molecules inside the body. What's interesting is that they have a portfolio of like a thousand of these, but really what they have is they have all the nuclear medicine about whether it works. They target glioblastoma. All of a sudden they can say, well, this ligand can actually cross the blood-bane barrier and get to the brain. They have an entire data set of that. A whole bunch of nuclear imagery around that. They have something for soft-cell carcinoma, so then they have that data set. To your point, that's really valuable because that's real work that Google or Microsoft or OpenAI won't do. If you have that and you bring it to the problem, you can probably make money. There's a business there to be built. Just building on this conversation, I just realized a great prompt engineer is going to become a title and an actual scale, the ability to interface with these. Here you go. Code in school 2.0. Code in school 2.0. Well, no, a prompt engineer. Somebody who is very good at talking to these instances and maximizing the result for them and refining the results for them. Just like a detective who asks great questions. That person is going to be 10 or 20 times more valuable. They could be the proverbial 10X engineer in the future as an accompany. As we talk about austerity and doing more with less than the 80% less people running Twitter now or Amazon laying off 18,000 people, Salesforce laying off 8,000, Facebook laying off 10 and probably another 10,000. What catalytic effect could this have? We keep sitting here in 304 or 5 years and instead of running a company like Twitter with 80% less people, maybe you could run it with 98% less people. Look, I think directionally it's the right statement. I've made the statement a number of times and I think we move from this idea of creator economy to an error in our economy where historically it was kind of labor economy where humans use their physical labor to do things. Then we're knowledge workers. We used our brains to make things. Then ultimately we resolve to this narrator economy where the way that you can state intention and better manipulate the tools to drive your intention. The more successful you're going to be. You can think about this as being the artist of the past. Da Vinci was what made him so good was he was technically incredible at trying to reproduce a photographic imagery using paint. There's these really great museum exhibits on how he did it using these really interesting kind of split mirror systems. Then the artist of the 21st century was the best user of Adobe Photoshop and that person is not necessarily the best painter. The artist of the 22nd century isn't going to look like the Photoshop expert and it's not going to look like the painter. It's going to look like something entirely different. It could be who's got the most creative imagination in driving the software to drive new outcomes. I think that the same analogy can be used across every market and every industry. However one thing to note, J.Kell, it's not about austerity because the blood-eyed argument is when you have new tools and you get more leverage from those tools, you have less work for people to do and therefore everyone suffers. The reality is new work emerges and new opportunities emerge and we level up as a species. When we level up, we all fill the gaps and expand our productivity and our capability set. I thought what J.Kell was saying was more that Google will be smaller, didn't mean that the pie wouldn't grow. It's just that individual company is run differently but there would be hundreds of more companies or thousands more millions more. That's sort of fun. I have an actual punch up for you. Instead of narrative, it's the conductor economy. You're conducting a symphony. A punch up. I do think there's going to be somebody who's sitting there like, remember Tom Cruise in Minority Report as a detective was moving stuff around with the interface, with the gloves and everything? This is kind of that manifested. Even if you're not an attorney, you can say, hey, I want to sue this company for copyright infringement, give me my best arguments and then on the other side say, hey, I want to know what the next three features I should put into my product is, can you examine who are my top 20 competitors and then who have they hired in the last six months and what of those people talking about on Twitter? You can have this conductor who becomes really good at that. The less of them out of tasks. The leveling up that happens in the book Ender's Game. I think it's a good example of this where the guy goes through the entire ground up and then ultimately he's commanding armies of spaceships and space and his orchestration of all of these armies is actually the skill set that wins the war. You predicted that there would be like all these people that create these next-gen forms of content. But I think this read-hopment thing could be pretty cool. What if he wins a Grammy for his computer-created podcast mini-series? That's the thing I'm really excited about. When's the first AI novel going to get published by a major publisher? I think it happens this year. When's the first AI symphony going to get performed by a major symphony orchestra? When's the first AI-generated screenplay get turned into an AI-generated 3D movie that we all watch? And then the more exciting one I think is when do we all get to make our own AI video game where we instruct the video game platform and world we want to live it? I don't think that's happening for the next three or four years. But when it does I think everyone's got these new immersive environments that they can live in. I have a question. When I say live it I mean video game wise. Yes, I got it. When you have these computer systems just like to use a question of game theory for a second, these models are iterating rapidly. These are all mathematical models. So, inherent in, let's just say the perfect answer, right? Like if you had perfect precision recall, if multiple models get there at a system wide level, everybody is sort of like they get to the game theory optimal. They're all at Nash equilibrium, right? All these systems working at the same time. Then the real question would then be what the hell do you do then? Because if you keep getting the same answer, if everybody then knows how to ask the exact right question and you start to go through these iterations where you're like maybe there is a dystopian hellscape or there are no jobs. Maybe that's the Elon world, which is you can recursively find a logical argument where there is no job that's possible, right? And now I'm not saying that that path is the likely path, but I'm saying it is important to keep in mind that that path of outcomes is still very important to keep in the back of our mind as we figure these things out. Well, freeberg, you know, you were asking before about this, like, you know, will more work be created? Of course, artistic pursuits at podcasting is a job now being an influencer is a job, yada yada, new things emerge in the world. But here in the United States in 1970, I'm looking at Fred, I'm looking at the St. Louis Fed, 1970, 26.4% of the country was working in a factory, was working in manufacturing. You want to guess what that is in 2012? Sorry, one percentage. It was 26% in 1970 and in 2015 when they stopped the percentage in manufacturing, I say it's it, they discontinued this, it was a 10. So it's possible. We could just see, you know, the concept of office work, the concept of knowledge work is going to follow pretty inevitable the path of manufacturing. That seems like a pretty logical the area or no? I think we should move on. Okay. How would we like to ruin the show now? Should we talk about Biden and the documents and ruin the show with political dog or should we dog about? Since it's been such a great episode so far, what do we want to talk about next? I'm going to come up. I know what you don't want to talk about. You guys are talking about privittum. Give it to him. Give it to him. Give it to him. We all know. We all know Jay Cal. We all know Jay Cal that according to you when a president is in possession of classified documents in his home that apparently have been taken an unauthorized man or basically stolen. He should have his home rated by the FBI. Almost close. Close. If so, anyway, the Biden as of the taping of this has now said there's a third batch of classified documents. This group, I guess there was one at an office, one at a library. Now this third group is in his garage with his quervet. Certainly not looking good and independent. They say that in his defense, they say the garage was locked, meaning that you could use a garage door opener to open and close it. That's what it was locked when it went close. So pretty much as secure as the documents at Barolago, same equivalency. No, no, no, actually, I mean, just to be perfectly fair, the documents in Marolago were locked in a basement. The FBI came, checked it out, said we'd like you to lock those up, they locked them up. Got it. A little safer than being in a garage door opener. A little safer than in the truck of your quervet. Funcially the same. Funcially the same. The only difference here would be what, SACs, when you look at these two cases. Well that in one case, Merrick Garland is appointed an independent counsel to investigate Trump and there's no such a special counsel or investigator appointed to investigate Biden. I mean, these things are function-to-same. You put somebody on it though. Wait, did you put it? They didn't put somebody on it. I don't think they've appointed a special counsel yet. No, they did. As of an hour ago, a special counsel was appointed. Okay. Did that just happen? Yeah, one hour ago. Robert Hurr is his name. Okay. I guess there are real questions to look into here. The documents apparently were moved twice. Why were they moved? To order that. What was a classified document doing in Biden's personal library? What did the documents pertain to? Do they touch on the Biden family's business dealings in Ukraine and China? So there are real things to look into here. But let me just take a step back. Now that the last three presidential candidates have been ensnared in these classified document problems, remember it's Biden now and then Trump and Hillary Clinton before Trump, I think it's time to step back and ask, are we overclassifying documents? I mean, are we fetishizing these documents? Are they all really that sensitive? It seems to me that we have an overclassification problem, meaning that ever since FOIA was passed the Freedom of Information Act, the government can avoid accountability and prying eyes by simply labeling any document as classified. So overclassification was a logical response by the permanent government to the Freedom of Information Act. And now it's gotten to the point where just about everything handed to a president or vice president is classified. So I think I can understand why they're all making this mistake. And I think a compounding problem is that we never declassify anything. There's still all these records from the Kennedy assassination that have never been classified. And they're supposed to have declassified these. The CIA keeps filibustering on the release of the JFK assassination documents and they've been told they have to stop and they have to release them and then they keep redacting stuff which is making it. I mean, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist here, but what are they trying to cover up? I mean, this is a long time ago. That's only when I interpret it. But even for more mundane documents, there are very few documents that need to be classified after even say five years. You could argue that we should be automatically declassifying them after five years unless they go through a process to get reclassified. I mean, I'd say like, just you guys in business, I know it's not government in business. How many of the documents that you deal with are still sensitive or trade secrets five years later? Certainly, 20 years. Certainly, 20 years later, they're not. Right? No, but I don't even say like five years. I mean, the only documents in business that I think are going to be a lot of documents. The only documents in business that I think I deal with that you could call sensitive are the ones that pertain to the company's future plans, right? Because you wouldn't want to convert to get those. There's a handful of things. Legal issues, yeah. Even capital was not that sensitive because by the time you go public, it's legally has to be public. Yeah. It's on card. There's a hundred people who have that. Exactly. So like in business, I think our experience has been there's very few documents that stay sensitive that need to remain secret. Now, look, if Biden or Trump, whoever, they're reviewing the schematics to the javelin missile system or to, you know, how we make our nuclear bombs or something, obviously, that needs to say secret forever. But I don't believe our politicians are reviewing those kinds of documents. Well, we both, I don't really understand what it is that they're reviewing. Why are they keeping that? That needs to be classified five years later. Why are they keeping them with the issue we discussed previously? We actually agreed on that. I think they're just keeping my hand. No, I think there's a simple explanation for why they're keeping them, Jason, which is that everything is more classified and there's a zillion documents. And if you look, like both Biden and Trump, these documents were mixed in with a bunch of personal effects and mementos. My point is, if you work in government and handle documents, they're all classified. So I mean. A special archive asked for them back or you find them, you should just give them back. I mean, that is, that's going to end up being the rough years. Trump didn't give them back and Biden did. But that's the only difference here. Well, no, no, no, hold on. The FBI went to Trump's basement. They looked around. They said, put a lock on this. They seemed to be okay with it initially. Then maybe they changed their minds. I don't know. I'm not defending Trump. It's pretty clear that he wouldn't give them back in. That was the point I'm making is that now that Biden, Trump and Hillary Clinton have all been ensnared in this, is it time to rethink the fact that we're overclassifying so many documents? I mean, just think about the incentives that we're creating for our politicians. Okay, just think about the incentives. Number one, never use email. Remember, Hillary Clinton and the whole email server? You got to be nuts to use email. Number two, never touch a document. Never touch a document. What? Never let anyone hand you a document. Flush them down the toilet. Never let anyone hand you a document. If you're a politician, an elected official, the only time you should ever be handling anything is going to a clean room. Right. You know, making a appointment, going to read something, don't take notes, don't bring a camera, and then leave. I mean, this is no way to run a government. It's crazy. Who does this benefit? Who does this benefit? It doesn't benefit our elected officials. It makes it almost impossible for them to act like normal people. It benefits the insiders, the permanent government. You're missing the most important part about this sex. This was, if you want to go into conspiracy theories, this was a setup, Biden planted the documents. Here we go. So that we could create the false equivalency and start up Biden versus Trump 2024. This ensures that now Trump has something to fight with Biden about, and this is going to help Trump. Because they're both tainted, equally tainted, the same sort of thing. They are equally tainted now. They're put in the news cycle. No, I think it's the opposite. I think Marik Arlen now is going to have to drop the prosecution against Trump for the stolen documents, or at least that part of what they're investigating him for. They might still investigate him over January 6th or something. They can't investigate Trump over documents now. At your age, those two seems more sticky. I agree with that, actually. I think it's going to be hard to do. But my point is, just think about, look, both sides are engaged in hyperparsanship. The way right now that the conservatives on the right, they're attacking Biden now for the same thing that the left was attacking Trump for. My point is, just take a step back, and again, think about the incentives we're creating about how to run our government. You can't use email, and you can't touch documents. And everything is in investigation. And by the way, if you don't ever go into politics if you're a business person, because they'll investigate every deal you ever did prior to getting into politics, I mean, what are you going to do when you try to get your treasury deposited? What's going to happen? You've got to be nuts to going to government. So you're not going to take a position in the defense cabinet. My point is that the Washington Insiders, by which I mean the permanent Washington establishment i.e. the deep state, they're creating a system in which they're running things, and the elected officials barely can operate like normal functioning humans there. Interesting. I heard a great rumor. Is this total gossip mongering? Oh, here we go. That one of Ken Griffin's best out is to get DeSantis elected so that he can become treasury secretary. I mean, Ken Griffin would get that if he wanted it. And then he would be able to divest all of Citadel tax-free. So he would mark the market like $30 billion, which is a genius way to go out. Now then it occurred to me, oh my God, that is me and Saks's path too. I'm in love with a lot less money, but the same path. Why would it be tax-free? When you get appointed to those senior posts, you're allowed to either stick it in a blind trust, or you can sell with no capital gains. What? Yeah. What? Well, because they want you to divest everything that can. Yes. Anything that presents a conflict, they want you to divest. So the argument is, if you're forced to divest it to enter a government, you shouldn't be forced. Wait, if I become mayor of San Francisco or Austin or federal government, I'm going to become secretary of transportation. Jake, hell, you can do that. Oh, I'm qualified for that. I've taken the bus. I got an electric bike to answer freeberg's point. I think Citadel securities, there's a lot of folks that would buy that because that's just a security trading business. And then Citadel, the hedge fund, probably something like a big bulge bracket bank or a blackstone, probably blackstone in fact, because now blackstone can plug it into a trillion dollar asset machine. It's a, I think there would be buyers out the door. This is an incredible grift. Now I know why sacks. It's not a grift at all, but it's an incredible, come on, man, a cabinet position for no cab gains. Well, that's not a grift. That's like those are the laws. They force us to sell everything. We don't care if they do public service. I think you're misusing the word to continue to genuflect the left leg. You're not, you're not, you're not, you're being a little defensive. You see this as a bad or you're dumb. I'm not stupid. I know what I see it. You take a cabinet position. Sacks, when you take a cabinet position, when you be secretary of secretary of secretary. Where does that exist? Yes, sacks, if you were asked to serve. Look, any normal person who wants to serve in government, you can't use email and you can't touch a document and every deal you've ever done gets investigated. That's it. Yes, that's it. Why would you want to do it? I mean, all sitting that, you get to dive us tax free. Me think, now, don't protest that too much, David Sacks. Look, I think you two know this rule. And free me or you don't know it. No, I know it. It's like a well-known person. I know this rich people, not I looked up grift. Everyone knows this. It means that to engage in a petty or small scale swindle, I don't think selling a $31 billion at the D. No, it's not small. This is black rock and black stone would be considered a petty small scale swindle. Did any of you guys watch the Mad Off series on Netflix? No, it was good. No. Oh my God, it is so depressing. I gotta say, just that Mad Off series, there is no glimmer of light or hope or positivity or recourse. Everyone is a victim. Everyone suffers. It is so dark. It's so dark. Don't watch it. It's so depressing. Okay, I'll find it. The main one is so depressing. It's so awful. Yeah, they all tell themselves and die. They all die. Like all the ones that want them, one guy died of cancer. Perfect pick card. I didn't realize all this. The trustee that went and got the money. He went and got money back from these people who were 80 years old and retired and had spent that money decades ago and he sued them and took their homes away from them. And they had no one. No one wanted. They were part of the scam. No one won. It was a brutal awful all spank. Yeah. By the way, that's going to be really interesting as we enter this SPF trial because that is the trial. That is what happens if you got it. And that's why the other district of New York said that this case is becoming too big for them because all the places that SPF said money, all those packs and all those political donations. They have to go and investigate where that money went and see if they can get it back. And it's going to open up an investigation into each one of these campaign finance and election and kind of interfering. Right. Now, not political. Pro public. Sorry. Pro public. I did watch this weekend. Triangle of sadness. Have you guys seen this? I watch this too. It's great. Oh my god. The triangle of sadness is great. It's so dark. To the David's. Listen, this is one of the. I thought it was. It didn't pay off the way I thought, but this is one of the best setups you'll see in a movie. So basically it's a bunch of people on a luxury yacht. So you have a bunch of rich people as the guests. Then you have the staff that interacts with them and this is like mostly Caucasian. And then under in the bowels of the ship, what you see are Asian and black workers that support them. Okay. So the in some ways is a little bit of a microcosm of the world. Oh, I think you're going to say a microcosm of something else. And then and then what happens is there's like a ship rack basically, right? I don't spoil it. Come on. Okay. So the plot is you have this Caucasian patriarchy that that gets flips upside down because after the shipwreck, the only person who knows how to make a fire and cash the fish is the Filipino woman who is in charge of cleaning the toilets. So she becomes in charge. So now you flip to this immigrant matriarchy. It's a pretty great meditation on class and survival. It's pretty well done. It didn't end well. I thought. I thought. Well, it's hard to wrap that one up. Well, you know what they say, boys, still a little and they throw you in jail. Still a lot and they make you king. Famous Bob Dylan quote. There you go. All right. Well, this has been a great episode. Great to see you, Basti's. Our Stardew menu tonight, Tramoth. What's on the our Stardew menu tonight? What are we doing? Salad, some tuna sandwiches. No, I think I think Kyrsten is doing. I think Dorod. Dorod? Yeah, that's. Yeah. That's a good fish. I mean, I once had a great Dorod in Venice. Oh, Venice. In Venice. The Dorod from Venice. That's where the meals we were at. Am I right? So good. I agree. When it's done well, the Dorod kicks us. There's only one way to cook a Dorod. Do you know what that is? You got to, it's the way they did in Venice. You got to cook the whole fish. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And then after you cook the fish, then you debone it. Right. And, uh, yeah, that's the way to do it. I was back when Saxon and I used to enjoy Shazza's company. But was podcast made into Mortal Attaboo. Jacob, I'm a little disappointed. You couldn't agree with my take on this document scandal. Instead of dunking it in a partisan way, I tried to explain why it was a problem of our whole political system. Yeah, like you're there. I, I, I think, you know, you, you keep too much to be different. I think Biden's a grifter. I told you, these guys are grifting. I just think you're, I just think you're party grifter a little bit more. But yeah, compare your craft. Are we going to play Saturday after the wildcard game? Are you guys interested in playing Saturdays? Well, because I got the hot pass. I can, I can do a game on Saturday. Oh, I don't know. I have to check with my boss. Who's going to the, are you guys all going to? Saxon, are you going to come to play poker at that livestream thing for the day? Do they? I doubt it. No. He doesn't want to interact with humans. That does not play well in confirmation hearings. No. The last time I did one of those Alan Keating destroyed me on camera. I like, like true. I had a few feet. And every time he bluffed, I folded it every time he had the, the nuts I called it was brutal. That's true. That was, that was a black, a shallacking, a classic sax. So is it a huge saving thing? Is that what's going on here? No, no, no, no. Preserving, no. No, I just don't know. It has to do with a cabinet position. He doesn't need to be seen recklessly gambling. So, Ben, if you could take any cabinet position, sax, which one would it be? Stay. Stay. States a lot of travel. Stay the ones on a lot of travel. You never stay at home. You're always on a plane. I'll tell you how to be good for him. I know. That's what he's looking for. I don't know that those like cabinet positions are that important. I mean, they run these giant bureaucracies that again are permanent. You can't fire anyone. So, if you can't fire a person, do they really report to you? Right. This is a great concern. The idea of this idea was like put a bunch of hard lines, CEO type people in charge, have them blow up these things and make them more efficient. It didn't really work, didn't it? Yeah. Well, you know why a CEO is actually in charge, like Elon, he walks in, he doesn't like what you're doing. He'll just fire you. You can't fire anyone. How do you manage them when they don't have to listen to anything you say? That's our whole government right now. Our cabinet heads are figureheads for these departments, these giant departments. Is that a no? Or is that a yes, you'd still take state? Look at that. Well, I think I have another deal. I think he's going for the ambassador ship first. What is the best ambassador ship? Well, you can't dig London, France, Pistol and Artlee. You can tell which ambassador ship is the best one based on how much they charge for it. Yeah. That's not me. I think London is the most expensive. I think that one is $10 million for London. $10 million for London. $10 million. Yeah. $10 million. That's what Saks is for at least expensive home cost. No, no, you have to spend that every year to run it, Jason. You only got to fix him. You could be the ambassador to Guinea or the ambassador to the UK. You get the same budget. Actually, what's kind of funny is I know two people who serve as ambassadors under Trump. Yeah. And it was really cheap to get those because no one wanted to be part of the Trump administration. No one. Oh, they were on fire sale. Two for one. They were on a fire sale after because of Trump. Who wants to be tainted? But by the way, one of them and you can just beep out the name. Was telling me it was the best thing because he ended up selling nearly the all time eyes to take the job. He was like, I got to get out of all of this stuff. No, but listen, let me tell you the ambassadorships. It was a smart trade by those guys because ambassadors are lifetime titles. So you're a ambassador, whatever. No one remembers what president when you are ambassador, no one cares. So you are going for the ambassador? No, no. No, no. I think he's going to ambassador. I'm not interested in ceremonial things. I'm interested in making an impact. And the problem with all these positions, I mean, being a cabinet official is not much different than being an ambassador. So you're going to, you're going to enlist in the Navy? No. What would it, what has a bigger impact? Being on all in pod, being an ambassador. Who's more influential? Sacks on the all in pod or beep as the ambassador Sweden. Beyond all in pod, actually. All in pod is more impactful. By the way, this is why I take issue with your statement about the term mainstream media because I think you have become the mainstream media more than most of the folks that that you've been in. No, we're independent media. We're independent media. Trust me, it's independent. It's not your own spread. And stop genuine flexing. No, it's independent. We, we're most of this thing's going to last another three episodes. I just like saying the word genuine. I know. You like genuine flexing. It's the top word of 2023 so far for me. Oh, is that, is somebody doing an analysis with Chad J.P. T over the words you're here? No, but Sacks brought that word up. It was just, so it's a wonderful word. It's, it's not used enough. All right, everybody. We'll see you next time on the all in pod cast comments are turned back on. Have at it you animals. Love you guys. Bye, bye. Love you besties. Bye. Well, like your winners ride. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. I sweet up. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. What? What are you? What are you? What are you? Besties are gone. I'm going through it. That's my dog taking it away. She's right. Wait. Sit. Oh, man. My ham is the actual meat. The actual. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all kids. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release that. What? You're the beef. What? You're the beer of beef. Beef. Beef. What? We need to get my cheese on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on. I'm going on.