All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E111: Microsoft to invest $10B in OpenAI, generative AI hype, America's over-classification problem

Episode Date: January 13, 2023

(0:00) Bestie intro! (0:43) Reacting to Slate's article on All-In (11:18) SF business owner caught spraying homeless person on camera (29:22) Microsoft to invest $10B into OpenAI with unique terms, generative AI VC hype cycle (1:09:57) Biden's documents, America's over-classification problem (1:27:16) Best cabinet positions/ambassadorships   Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg   Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast   Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg   Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect   Referenced in the show: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1613135006272045056 https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/all-in-podcast-elon-musk-david-sacks-jason-calacanis-chamath-palihapitiya-david-friedberg.html https://newrepublic.com/article/168125/david-sacks-elon-musk-peter-thiel https://twitter.com/BettyKPIX/status/1613080547022229504 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-12/bankers-bet-millions-on-sovereign-debt-deals-tied-to-green-goals https://fortune.com/2023/01/11/structure-openai-investment-microsoft https://www.ft.com/content/6670acad-8a5b-4c4a-b6a8-48dc307b6d4d https://openai.com/blog/introducing-openai https://ai.facebook.com/tools/pytorch https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USAPEFANA  

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 on the back. 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. This is Chappelle at the Punchline. Let's go. Let's go. Upgraded. Go. Go. Go.

Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go.

Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Go. Queen of kilowatt doing brilliant. All right, everybody, welcome to episode 111

of the world's greatest podcasts, according to Slate, the podcast that shall not be mentioned by the press, apparently. What do you mean they just did a profile on us? Well, they did. This is the conundrum. It's so much of a phenomenon that we're 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

The thing nowadays when everyone says they want to go direct. It's because they don't want to be subject to independent journalists Well one might ask themselves why Subjects don't want to go direct. Yeah, exactly. You 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 interested. But the challenge is that then we avoid independent scrutiny of 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.

Well, they have a class hatred of basically of technology entrepreneurs and investors. It's just too sex. The client, I think. No, exactly. You're right, Jake, how they don't hate you. of basically of technology entrepreneurs and investors. It's just true sex. You're right, Jake, how they don't hate you, because you genuinely flex to their political biases. 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 refer to the specific large media outlets, right, so I think the same one is not referring to Fox no, okay. Nobody. 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 mileage out of being able to name Fox. The fact of the matter is, Megan Callie, that's a podcast, or she's independent now. That's true, she's a good one.

I mean, literally one outlet that is not part of this, you know, mainstream media. And they all think the same way. There are very small differences in the way they think. It's all about clicks. It's all about clicks at this point, and it's all about advocacy journalism. 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 dream on 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 classification that's done by the 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 this activism? They're just activists.

Why does anybody, they're also journalists out there, so actually, well, it depends what the topic isn't 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 wanna 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 party activists. They have become advocacy journalism, yes. That's a term I coined for it. It's advocacy journalism. You guys see this bruhaha, where Matt and Glacias wrote this article about the Fed and about the debt ceiling. And through this whole multi hundred word, thousand word, Tom, he didn't understand the difference between a percentage point and the basis point.

And then he can calculate the interest. Yeah, I did see that. Wow. So wait a second. You're saying the feds raise a 25%? Yeah. That's a huge difference between a print. My mortgage is about 25% between a principle and an outside analyst, right? Like a principle has a better grasp, typically, of the topics and material. But, you know, the argument from a journalist, the argument from a journalist, if 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 wanna 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 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 nonsensical content. This one was easy because it was so numerically illiterate that it just stood out. to police all of this nonsensical 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 B? That's I think the thing that's kind of undeniable. Right. Yeah, you only made two.

You only made two. 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 five to 20. There is a name for it. It's called the Jailman Amnesia effect. You just played Royce Michael Criteon, who came up with that. Yeah, so you, yeah. But no, he's exactly right. But I think it's worse than that. 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 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... If you want for clicks, yeah. It's a huge... So they're trying way too hard to like describe us in terms of Elon, which 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 one of those tweet summaries, where it does a capsule or whatever. Yeah, 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 told it to them. 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 pick, there's somebody who's really good at social media, they pick six or seven headlines, they abtest 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 and because people who read the headlines, sometimes they don't read the story, right? Obviously most people will read the headlines Sometimes they don't read the story right obviously most people 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 monstrous monstrosity of illustration Don't worry about it people just read the headline. They know you're important nobody reads the story anyway But it wasn't a bad article. It was well written actually. Yeah, shock.

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.

And I thought this can't be true. And it turned out to mostly be true. Yeah, but my picture was terrible. Yeah, but it's close to reality. Oh, my geez. I mean, I just showed the world there was Peter Tiel, more poor Peter. That just shows how ridiculously biased it is, right? Peter Tiel, more poor Peter. Yeah, but that just shows how ridiculously biased it is, right? I'm sure it was a lot of questions about you. Uh, Hugh Grant. You don't look to pull it up one more time here.

You don't look like Hugh Grant. I just kind of he does. You kind of not bad. Kind of looks like Hugh Grant in like nodding Hill. I knew that article was going to be fine when the first, you know, 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, you know, out of control right movement. Look at the headline, the quiet political rise of David Sacks. So it's a profit of urban do. I'm just letting you know, people don't get past the six word in the image Yeah, it's 99% of people are like oh my god congrats on the you know republic article It could have little bit Laurel. What do they call them? Laurel Ipsom'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,

you know, walking dead that apparently you're a profit of urban doom. 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 is challenging and having to clean up feces and you know 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 I just love that. I saw that. I was just like, the humanity in this is just insane.

Like, really, like you're hosting a human being down. It's terrible. Who is obviously not living a great life and, you know, I can feel the focus. I'm Jake Hal. I can feel for both them. I agree that it's not good to host 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. So they're both like 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. is being mistreated. The store owners being mistreated by the city of San Francisco. Yeah. Same thing. That 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 just I'm laying the rope. No, I'm just saying.

No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying. No, I'm just saying to do, what you're trying to do is, oh my God, look at 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. What is that person supposed to do? No, this is symbolic of the breaking down of basic society. Like, both of these people are obviously, like, it's just a horrible moment to even witness. It's like, it's like, it's like, it's something, Jason, do you have equal empathy for the store owner and the homeless person or no?

Under no circumstances, should you pose 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 horrific. Yes, and this thing is disturbing. Yeah. In that moment, the empathy is not equal. I think you have more empathy, obviously, for the person on the receiving end of that host. Okay, but in general, our society has tons of empathy

from those 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, 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? The city has destroyed these. 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 into stores, what are you supposed to start to code all of a sudden? Well, no, I mean, you would shut it down at some point and find an exit. And do like, all businesses as large fixed costs, right? So, what do you mean,

you're supposed to do? When 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, J. Exactly. At some point, you have to shut down your story and it's just go the second you can get out of it. The solution to everything, J.K.L. isn't go to coding school online and then, you know, I don't think it's 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 bring it up. Learn to code.

Learn to code. Get a good job. Get a gig. The guys, the guys, the guys 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 are 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 go to the store down the road to get my grocery store Whatever like I mean, it's not a kind of uncommon situation for a lot of these small business

So if 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 populations 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. 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%. It's impossible in San Francisco, let's just be honest. So stop genuine reflecting, Jake House. I'm not trying to push people to listen. I just be honest. So I'm genuinely reflecting J. Cal's not trying to push people to listen. I you are because here here.

Here's my general reflecting. I'm saying the guy I'm just shocked that the guy even has a storefront. I would have left a lot of you're showing 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 dypope in the lost customers. The stuff that freebergant Jamal 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 who knows, man. 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. And actually, you want to know another reason why we can't solve this problem.

This is the language we use around it. The fundamental problem here is not homeless. Okay. No, It's addiction. It's addiction. You see, and it's mental illness. Shellenberger's 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... 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 superdrug.

This 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

attractable problem. Unfortunately, the mandate, I mean, you guys remember that Kevin Bacon movie? Or Kevin Bacon was locked up in a mental institution, but he wasn't like, he wasn't mentally ill. It's a famous story. It's a famous, what's that? story. It's a famous, what's that? A famous story. You guys, someone's probably going to call the idiot for 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 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 suit I could put in a suit. You think I want to put this in a suit? 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 on the street. You're talking about 5150, I think, like when people are held. But if they're a danger to themselves or others, kind of thing. Right, but Jay, I'm thinking 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 is this is an untreated person the whole policy prescription

We completely different it realized 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 why and laws that mandated that 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 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 in policy perspective on this, Jake House. So let me ask you as our our diehard liberal on this show. No, I'm not a diehard liberal. No, no, no, independent only vote for Democrats. Please get it right. 75% of the time I voted Democrats, 25% of the time I'm right.

Independent of votes for Democrats. Okay. 25% Republicans. Is it not that your individual liberties aren't framed upon if you were to be quote picked up and put away? You know, my position on it is if you're not thinking straight and you're high on fentanyl, you're not thinking for yourself and you could lose the liberty for a small period of time, 72 hours a week. You know, 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, you're a danger to.

I mean, I think if more, I think if more people have that, if more people have that point of view and have that debate, it's actually 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 happened. So, 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. 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. And by the way, 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. If the person is committing something illegal, like camping out or doing fentanyl, math, whatever, you can use the law as the backstop.

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's and I don't think we've ever really recovered and that we're 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 well that break and had a lot of positives Yeah, 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 make a couple two points there so i'm i'm i'm not defending that specific decision there were a bunch of scandals in the nineteen seventies and

epitomized by the movie one flu over the kukus nest of jack nickleston about the conditions in these mental health homes and that did create a groundswell to change the laws around that i think this idea that like somehow ragan is to blame when he hasn't been an office for fifty years as opposed to the politicians who've been in office of the last twenty years i just think it's letting them off the hook

i mean gavin new sim ten fifteen years ago when he was mayor san francisco declared that he would end homelessness within ten years he just made another declaration like that as governor. So I just feel like bringing it. I'm not saying it's Reagan's fault. I'm just saying it's just a rather interesting historical moment.

I think it's letting the budget's all over. 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 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 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 street similar to Scope. That is the current policy of the city. I hear you, 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, we're not decisionary. I think that's part of the solution here is yeah, we're gonna have to basically build up shelters, we gonna have to build up 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 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 they did appropriate. I forget the number. It's like 10 billion or something out of that, you know, huge budget they had to solve the problem of 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. They almost have a 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 building scale shelters. I mean, shelters that can house 10,000 people, not 10. And you'd be having treatment services. And they all have to get treatment, yes.

Yeah, 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 two trillion dollars 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 two 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 then h your conservancy Goes to these countries and says listen, you know, you have a billion dollar tranche 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 bond holders to give them 50 cents on the dollar. But 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 black rock, 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 purchase a signal and buy some ESG to make a shelf feel good, yeah. Two trillion dollars of experience. There's only 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. This asks us.

How crazy is that? It's a complete game. It's a game. That's it, yeah. 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 just perverse in industry J. Cal. It's an industry of mental health. Absolutely. All right. Speaking of graphs, Microsoft is going to put $10 billion

or something into chat G.P.T. G-Generate AI, as I'm calling it now, is the hottest thing in Silicon Valley. Wow. 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. That'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 most 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 open AI, but get 75% of the cash and profits back over time. 49% 49% yeah of open AI, but they would get paid back the $10 million 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 is taken the net by storm. People are really inspired by it. Sacks, do 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 toilet. 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 bust. VR falls into the hype cycle. I think VR 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 OpenAI 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. I'm sure Facebook is going to do something huge in AI. 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 that. But you think there could be hundreds of companies built around an API for something like ChaggbT.dolley.

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 OpenAI 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. There's a lot of great examples of this. The fundamental capabilities of large data sets and then using these learning techniques in software and statistical models to make 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. It's here today. 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 validated and generating real

value across many other verticals and segments. Shmoth, when you look at this Microsoft Open AI deal and you see something that's this convoluted, hard to understand, what does that signal to you as a capital allocator and company builder? I would 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 won't work. Why is it in 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. Their 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 too 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. And 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. Right? 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? You build 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. So 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 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, OpenAI 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, it's 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 deep mind within them and that that sort of power It 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 kind of scary threatening biggest threat to humanity

Is Google's control of deep mind and that was a naive kind of point of view is Google's control of DeepMind. And that was a naive kind of point of view, but it was one that was deeply held by a lot of people. So Reed Hoffman, Peter Teal, Elon Musk, a lot of these guys funded the original kind of 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. 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,

we'll 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, Rie, Jessica, Peter T.L., AWS, YC, are all donating to support OpenAI, 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 data. So I've heard of 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, OpenAI has kind of diverged into this deeply profitable, profit-seeking kind of enterprise model. And when you invest in OpenAI in the round that they did before, you could generate a financial return capped at 100 X, 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 in 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. Yeah. To build on what you're saying, I just put in pie torch. People don't know. That's another framework, PYTORCH.

This was, you know, a large e-built inside of Facebook. And then Facebook said, hey, we 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, Tremoth, TensorFlow was inside of our,

I don't, I don't have an investment in TensorFlow. We know TensorFlow, the public source came out of Google and then you invested in another company. Well, 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. Okay. It's not a sort 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. Tens are flowed before that. And what's so funny about 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 lists. I mean, this is Google and Facebook, guys.

Come on. This is the, I think the big innovation of OpenAI, SACS, to bring you in the conversation. They actually made an interface and let the public play with it to the tune of three million dollars 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've tried, we've been using it so much. We know 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 some last time, SACS, the technology became this mainstream and captured people's imagination, this broadly. That's been a while. I don't know. I mean, the iPhone or something.

Yeah. Yeah, look, it's powerful. Maybe the iPhone or something. Yeah. 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 and 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 Chad GPT. So just the fact that you asked that question and over time, if Chad 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 Bottega? 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, then this answer, you're cited Yelp. Well, this is the first time I've actually seen Chatchy PT site, and this is I think a major legal breakthrough. It didn't put a link in. But if it's going

to use Yelp's data, I don't know if they have permission from Yelp, but it's quoting Yelp here, it should link to French laundry, botega, and Bouchon. Bouchon actually has the best of a config for the record. And I did have that duck. 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 I was thinking about next tasks at 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 in the world of napster and what happened was there is a lot of musicians i think metalica 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. There's economic damage that I can measure. That legal argument was meaningful enough that ultimately naps or wish I'd 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 were going through their app, there's 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 very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, if you are a human reading every review on Yelp about Duck, then you could write a blog post in what you say, many reviewers on Yelp say that Bouchon is the best duck. So the question is like, is GPT help to that standard, or is it something different?

And is linking to it, 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 and 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'd say, well, we're doing an original work. We're comparing two or three different, you know, human is comparing two or three different reviews. And we're adding something to it. It's a, you know, it's not a, it's not interfering with what 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 factors, whether you're used to prives the copyright owner of income or undermines a

new or potential market for the copyrighted work, depriving 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... I mean, you can't get a big enough data set if you have to get permission in advance, right? You have to go out and negotiate. Well, no, it's cool. 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 Chatchy PT on. Chatchy PT is not allowed to, because as 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. But 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. And 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. And right now, there's just too much betting on the come. So to the extent you're going to invest, it makes sense that you put money into open AI because that's safe. Because 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 chat GPT 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 chat GPT 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, what would be too cheap of a price for Chatchy PT 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. But I was just thinking imagine Chatchy PT allowed you, Friedberg, to have a Slack channel

called Research. And you could go in there or anytime you're in Slack, you do Slash Chat or Sash Chat GPT. And you say, Slash Chat GPT, tell me, you know, what are the venues available in which we did this actually for? I did this for venues for all in some right to what are the venues that seat over 3000 people in? Vegas and it just gave us the answer. Okay. Well, that was the job of a 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 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 data has been utilized in all systems for the past 60 years and 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. 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, and 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 gonna 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. In Biotech and Farma, 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 and an advantage in being able to do things like drug discovery, and 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 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 or treason 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 and J.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. But what data could you figure out? And then just to think of the recent history, look at Chesa Boudin, you could literally take every case, every argument he did, put it through it, and say, versus an outcome in another state, and you could figure out what's actually going on with this technology.

What impact did 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, I did try. Yes, of course.

Of course, you have to be kind of dumb to fail the bar. Look, it's time to roll the designs. Yes, I went to Stanford, dude. I'm rated 18, I'm pretty. It's a day to stay in company. I may not have passed the bar, but I know a little shit enough to know that you can't leave. I would be curious in terms of a very common question that an associated a law firm would

get asked would be something like, you know, summarize the legal precedence in favor of X, right? And that, you can imagine G.P imagine GPT doing that like instantly. Now, I think that the question about that, I think there's two questions. One is Can you prompt GPT 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 GPT questions in a very exact prompt engineering. Why? Because GPT is a command line interface. So if you ask GPT a simple question about what's the best restaurant in NAPA, it knows how to answer that. But there are much more complicated questions that you kind of need to know how to prompt it in the right way. 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 copywriters and marketers, helping them write blog posts and emails. So, imagine putting that like 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 is it?

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, it depends on the brain. Yeah, it's a fucking ticket versus a murder trial is too very different. 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 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? Could the associates start with chat GPT, get an answer, and then validate it? Yeah, 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 chat 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, chat 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 chat GPD. I mean, Tremoth, we have a conversation with the two David's every week. What's the difference? We know how this is going to turn out.

Hey, but actually synthesizing Tremoth's point about reinforcement learning with something you said, Jake Allen, our chat, 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 again, 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 you're most 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. Freeberg mentioned it last week. I did it on Wednesday with this really

interesting company, Basin Zurich, and 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, glioblastoma, and so 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, and a whole bunch of nuclear imagery around that. They have something for soft-cell carcinoma, so then they have that data set.

So to your point, that's really valuable, that's real work. That Google or Microsoft or OpenAI won't do. And 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 like a great prompt engineer is going to become a title and an actual scale, the ability to interface with these AI's.

And that's prompt engineer. Well, no, prompt engineer, somebody who's very good at talking to these, you know, 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 gonna be 10 or 20 times more valuable. They could be the proverbial 10X engineer in the future as an accompany. And as we talk about austerity and doing more with less and 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 could be 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 moved from this idea of creator economy to narrator economy where historically was kind of labor economy where humans use their physical labor to do things. Then we were knowledge workers. We used our brains to make things. And then ultimately we kind of, I think, resolve to this narrator

economy where the way that you kind of can state intention and better manipulate the tools to drive your intention, a lot of come, the more successful you're going to be. And you can kind of 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 like imageryic imagery using paint. And there's these really great museum exhibits on how you did it using these really interesting

kind of split mirror systems. And then the artist of the 21st century and the 20th century was the best user of Adobe Photoshop. And that person is not necessarily the best painter. And 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. And I think

that the same analogy can be used across every market, every industry. However, one thing to note, J-Cal, it's not about austerity, because the lead-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. And when we level up, we all kind of fill the gaps

and expand our productivity and our capability set. I thought what Jake Al was saying was more that Google will be smaller, didn't mean that the pie wouldn't grow. It's just that that individual company is run differently, but there would be hundreds of more companies, or thousands more millions more. Yeah, that's sort of fun. I had an actual punch up for you.

Yeah. Instead of narrative, it's the conductor economy. It's you're conducting a symphony. Ooh, actual punch up for you. Yeah. Instead of narrative, it's the conductor economy. It's your conducting a symphony. Ooh, a punch up. Punch up there. But I do think like there's going to be somebody who's sitting there like, remember Tom Cruz in minority report as a detective was moving stuff around with a interface, the in, you know, with the gloves and everything.

This is kind of that manifested. You could, 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 are those people talking about on 20? You can have this conductor, you know, who becomes really good at that. Well, the less some, the less of them have to task.

Yeah, the leveling up that happens in the book Ender's Game, I think is a good example of this where the guy goes through the entire kind of ground up and then ultimately he's commanding armies of spaceships and space. His orchestration of all of these armies is actually the skill set that wins the war. Yeah. 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 Hoffman thing could be pretty cool. What if he wins a Grammy for his computer-created podcast mini-series? That's what I'm saying. The thing I'm really excited about.

When's the first AI novel going to get published by a major publisher? I think it happened to this year. When's the first AI symphony get published by a major publisher? I think it happened this year. When's the first AI symphony gonna get performed by major symphony orchestra? And 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 wanna 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 you say live in, I mean video game ones, yes, right? When you have these computer systems, just like to use a question of game three for a second, these models are iterating rapidly. These are all mathematical models. So inherent in, let's just say this, 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, Freiburg, 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 state 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, the concept of knowledge work, is going to follow pretty inevitable the path of manufacturing. That seems like a pretty logical of the area or no. I think we should move on. Okay. So 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 giving you a couple choices. I know what you don't want to talk about. I also know you guys are talking about privittum. Give it to give it to me. We all know we all know. We all know. We all know.

Eric glasses. All a second. We all know, Jake Cal that that according to you when a president is in possession of classified documents in his home. Yes. Apparently have been taken in an unauthorized manner, basically stolen. He should have his home rated by the FBI. Almost. Close.

Close. almost close close. Yeah. 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 this quervet. Certainly not looking good. 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. So it was locked when it went close. So pretty much as secure as the documents at Barelago, same equivalency. No, no, no, actually, I mean, just to be perfectly fair, the documents at Barelago were

locked in a basement. The FBI came, checked it out, said we'd like you to lock those up, they locked them up. So a little safer than being in a garage with a poor vet. 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 council to investigate Trump

and there's no such a special council or investigator appointed to investigate by then i mean yes these things are function to put somebody on it though we did put it's not on i don't think they've appointed a special council yet no they did as of an hour ago a special council 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 removed twice. Why were they moved? Who ordered 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 promise that we never declassify anything there's all these records from the kennedy assassination well that's never been classified they and they're supposed to have declassified these the c-i-a 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 they keep redacting stuff. Which is making it. 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. Like in almost five years. They're going to say like five years. I mean, 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 come out of to get those. There's a handful of things. Caktible. To get those. Caktible. There's a handful of things, right? Legal issues, yeah. Even Caktible is 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. I mean, it's 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 or 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, I mean, we both, I don't really understand what it is that they're reviewing.

Why are they keeping them... That needs to be classified five years later. And why are they keeping them with the issue we discussed previously? We actually agreed on that. I think they're just keeping my map. 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 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, if the National Archives asked for them back or you find them, you should just

give them back. I mean, that is, that's going to wind up being the rug here. Trump didn't give them back and Biden did that's the only difference here no no no hold on the fby went to trump's basement they looked around they said put a lock on this they seem to be okay with it initially then maybe they changed their minds i don't know i'm not defending trump very clear that he wouldn't give them back in that was the point i'm making is that now that bite in trump and hilly 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. 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. 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? Who does this benefit? It doesn't benefit our elected officials. It makes it almost impossible for them to act like normal people. That's what it benefits the insiders, the permanent government. You're missing the most important part about the 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 but and this is gonna help Trump is saying because they're both tainted, equally tainted, from the same source. They are equally tainted now, but I try. And then you 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 6 they're investigating in for they might still investigate over January six or something that can't investigate from over documents now. It seems more sticky. I agree with that actually. I think it's going to be hard to do. But my point is like just think about look both sides are engaged in hyperparsanship the

way right now that the conservatives and the right they're attacking Biden now for the same thing that the left was attacking Trump for. My point is, like, 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's in investigation in the second you get on the office. And by the way, if you're 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.

What are you going to do when you try to get your treasury position? 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 disantistence. 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. This is 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 to love with a lot less money, but why would it be tax free? When you get appointed to those branch, those senior posts, you're allowed to either stick in a blind trust or you can sell with no capital gains. What? Yeah. What? Well, because they want you to divest anything that can.

Yes, anything that presents a conflict they want you to divest, and so the argument is, if you're forced to divest it to enter a government, you shouldn't be forced to be stopped. Wait, if I become mayor of San Francisco or Austin, I don't know. Federal government. Federal government. I just need a conflict. I'm a Secretary of Transportation, Jake, hell, you can do that. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, bulge bracket bank or 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, this is an incredible grift. Now I know why sacks. It's not a grift at all, but it's an incredible, come on, we had 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 have grift in the woods. And then you do public service. I think you're I think you're misusing the word to continue to genuflect the left. No, I'm not.

You're a little defensive. You see this as a bad or you're dumb. I'm not stupid. I don't know what I see it. You take a cabinet position. Sex when you don't take cabinet. What do you be secretary of other, where does that exist? Yes, act, 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 the, yes, that's the, yes. Why would you want to do it? I mean, all studying that, you get to divest tax-free. Me think, now don't protest that too much, David Sacks. Look back at you to know this rule.

And free me a good amount of. No, I know it. It's like a well-known. I know this rich people, knowledge. I looked up, Gryft, everyone was doing this. Everyone engaged. It means that to engage in a petty or small scale swindle, I don't think selling a $31 billion at the D.

Yeah, no, it's not small. This is a black rock and black stone would be considered a petty small scale swindle. I don't think selling a $31 billion. Yeah, no, it's not small. The combination of black rock and black stone would be considered a petty small scale. Did any of you guys watch the Mad Off series on Netflix? No, it was a good. No, oh my god. It is so depressing. I gotta say, like 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 just so dark.

Don't watch it, it's so depressing. Okay, I have one. I have one. I have one. It's so depressing, it's so awful. Yeah, they all kill themselves and die. They die. They die.

And like all the one goes down one of them. One guy died of cancer. It's too. Perfect pick card. I didn't realize all this, the trustee, that when it got the money, he went and got money back from these people who were 80 years old and retired

and it spent that money decades ago. And he sued them and took their homes away from them. And they had no one, they were part of the scam, no one won. It was a brutal awful all-space thing. Yeah, the only thing that was that. By the way, that's gonna be really interesting as we enter this SBF trial because that is the track that is what happens if you got

That's why the other district of New York said that this case is becoming too big for them because all the places that FsbF said money all those packs and all those political donations Sessions 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. No, not political pro public. Sorry pro public. On the other end of the spectrum, I did watch this weekend try and go of sadness. Have you guys? I watched this. Who's great. My god. That's the two, who's great? Oh my God, the title of sadness is great. It's so dark.

To the David's, listen, this is one of, 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 in the bowels of the ship, Then you have the staff that interacts with them. And this is like mostly Caucasian. And then in the bowels of the ship,

what you see are Asian and black workers that support them, okay? So in some ways, it's a little bit of a microcosm of the world. Oh, I think you're gonna say a microcosm of something else. And then what happens is there's like a ship rack basically, right?

I don't spoil it. I'll just start it. So the plot is you have this Caucasian patriarchy that can flip sides upside down because after the shipwreck, the only person who knows how to make a fire and catch 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, yeah, yeah, yeah. 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, besties. Our starry-d menu tonight, Tramoth. What's on the starry-d 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. D'arad, yeah, that's a good fish. I mean, I once had a great D'arad in Venice. D'arad from Venice. That's where I met Miehlzi or Mad.

Am I? So good. I agree. When it's done well, the D'arad kicks us. There's only one way to cook a D'arad. 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 Dbone it right and That's a way to do that was back when sax and I used to enjoy shows this company But this podcast made us into mortal editor's jake. I'm a little disappointed You couldn't agree with my take on this document scandal instead of dunking in a partisan way. I tried to explain why it was a problem of our whole political system. Yeah, like you're there. I think you know, 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 gr 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 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 on? Sax, are you going to come to play poker

about that livestream thing for the day? Do they like it? 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. That's true.

I had two feet. Every time he bluffed, I folded it every time he had the nuts I called. That's true. It was brutal. That was a black, a shallacking, a classic sack shell. So is it a huge saving thing? Is that what's going on here? No, no, no, no.

No, I just don't know. It has to do with a cabinet position. See, it doesn't need to be seen recklessly gambling. So, Ben, if you could take any cabinet position sacks, which one would it be? State. Treasury. State's a lot of travel.

State's a lot of travel. You never stay at home. You're always on a plane 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 Yeah, if you can't fire a person do they really report to you? I mean If you can't fire a person, do they really report to you? Right. This is a great question. The idea of a person's 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 for these departments these judge I don't know or is that a yes you still take state Look at that I think he's going for the ambassador ship first. What is the best ambassador ship? Well, you can't dive into anything for hands. Pistol or clay, 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's $10 million for London. $10 to $15 million. $10 million, yeah. $10 to $15 million. That's what SACs is for at least expensive home cost. No, no, you have to spend that every year to run it, Jason. You only get to fix for 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. And it was really cheap to get those because no one wanted to be part of the Trump administration. But no one- Oh, they were on fire sale. Two for one. They were on fire sale after because of Trump. Who wants to be tainted?

The by the way, one of them, and you can just beep out the name. It was telling me, it was the best thing because he ended up selling nearly, get 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 ambassador, whatever.

No one remembers what president when you are ambassador, no one cares. So you are going for the ambassador? So stay, I think it's fair to say. I think he's going 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, what, 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 know we're independent media. We're independent media. Trust me, it's independent. It's the thing. And stop independent. It's not your life. Fred and stop genuine. Flecting. It's independent. We know this thing's going to last another three episodes.

I just like saying the word genuine. I know you like genuine. Flecting. And that is the top word of 2023 so far for me. Oh, is that is somebody doing an analysis with Chad J.P. T. of the words you're here? No, but sax 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 podcast. Comments are turned back on have at it you animals. Love you guys. Bye-bye. Love you besties. Bye.

We'll let your winners ride Rainman David And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with Besties are gone, go for it! That's my dog taking a wish and you're driving so fast! Wait, I don't think it is! Oh man, I might have to dash or we'll meet the ambulance We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two Because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release some of them What, you're the big, what, you're the beer of beef?

Beep, beep, beep, what? We need to get merchies aren't there! I'm going all it!