All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - ICE Chaos in Minneapolis, Clawdbot Takeover, Why the Dollar is Dropping

Episode Date: January 30, 2026

(0:00) Bestie intros + quick Davos recap (9:55) ICE chaos in Minneapolis: aftermath and reactions to the two recent deaths (45:54) Clawdbot takeover: Jason demos his OpenClawd instances, Kimi K2.5, entering the next phase of AI (1:09:58) De-dollarization, gold and silver ripping (1:20:05) California governor race Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://x.com/StephenM/status/2015133481261474030 https://www.axios.com/2026/01/27/trump-stephen-miller-massacre-minnesota-shooting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Z3ZUbL2e0 https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/billions-paid-out-by-medicaid-in-minnesota-may-be-fraudulent-us-attorney https://www.dhs.gov/wow https://nypost.com/2026/01/25/us-news/anti-ice-protesters-swarm-st-paul-hotel-they-believe-is-housing-fed-agents/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tke0kY4l4e4 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/murders-plummet-crime-trends-2025/ https://x.com/shellenberger/status/2016671351486967995 https://x.com/BoLoudon/status/1942641987326185693 https://x.com/JamesBlairUSA/status/2016154036550930765 https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2016564161484873748 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2016537492493676905 https://x.com/chamath/status/2015966444027322763 https://polymarket.com/event/california-governor-election-2026 https://www.reuters.com/world/musks-spacex-merger-talks-with-xai-ahead-planned-ipo-source-says-2026-01-29

All right, everybody, welcome back to the All In Podcast, your favorite podcast, your favorite podcast, with me again, the original Quartet is here. Shemoth Polly Hopatia in just an absolute fabulous winter sweater, January. Looking great. Look the size of those buttons. Huge buttons. How many rhinos died to provide those buttons? Zero rhinos. Zero rhinos.

I'm a simple man that lives by simple ones. Okay. Beautiful. beautiful and your sultan of science david friedberg what's the background here is that a melancholy and infinite sadness background i'm trying to figure out take how we don't talk about my backgrounds thank you it looks like melancholy and the infinite sadness by the double album by the amazing band smashing pumpkins am i close or is it the original artwork of that don't talk about my backgrounds you don't talk about your backgrounds why i'm talking about your background giving me so much

giving me so much to work with here. Luckily, I have my straight man, my brother in arms, my Davos party crashing partner, David Sachs. I got you your first invite to something elite and exclusive. I mean, I got invited to go 25 years ago. They just wanted 50 dives. But we had a fun time. Yeah, we had a good time.

We had a good time. Any post-Davos W-E-F impressions? We had a lot of interesting meetings, so most of which I don't think we can talk about on air, but it was an interesting event. We were staying in a log cabin that was like 300 years old. The ceilings were like six feet high,

and the door frames were like five feet high, so bumped our heads a couple of times. Yeah. It was pretty crazy. It was brutal. I mean, it looked good on the web, the photos of the place looked amazing. The Airbnb photos look great.

Yeah. But I think you need to be inside the circle. You need to be inside the thick of it, not driving in every day. But it was a distinctly different Davos. We've mocked Davos here for many years. But this one was a business takeover and a Trump takeover. Correct. Chamath, you would have loved it.

It was 1.5 days of everybody hand-wringing of what Donald Trump would say when daddy got there. Then for the 75 minutes daddy gave his talk, the entire city shut down. Everybody ran to a television set. Then for the next 1.5 days, everybody talked about what Trump said. Basically, I think there are two really big differences with Estabos, based on what I heard, because this is the first time I've attended. One is it was much more business-centric. And then second, there were a lot more Americans there, a much bigger American presence. And I think that that owes to the fact that President Trump gave a major speech there. And I think it was Larry Fank, who's chairman of the whole thing now, who sort of orchestrated that. And he wanted to get President Trump there. And I think he's pushed

for them to be a little bit more business-centric. And it feels like they're catering a little bit less to kind of boutique European political issues, although that's clearly a big part of it. I would say in terms of memorable moments. A big one was, I'm only going to talk about this because I think it was publicly reported. Otherwise, I wouldn't bring it up. But there was this opening night dinner. And so Larry Fink calls on like five people to give little speeches. And the last one he called on was Howard Ludnik, our secretary of commerce. And Howard just goes up there and he just starts dropping truth bombs on them. And again, he said all of this on the record in his remarks. at Davos, I think either that day or the next day.

So again, I'm not talking out of school. It was all stuff that he said. But basically, he said to like all the Europeans, he said, look, I've been coming here for 30 years and you guys have completely failed. You've wrecked your economies with all this net zero stuff and climate change and energy. And he just started blasting on that. And then all the open border stuff, he really let them have it. I mean, he was really the truth.

And then there was this uncomfortable, like rustling in the audience. You know, as he was like gathering steam. and then it's been reported Al Gore started booing at the end drunk on chardonnay is that true I can't verify that it was Al Gore but I definitely heard somebody

and I think it was Al Gore who was It's like the two guys from the Muppets and the balcony Statler and whoever and it's just like Woldorf and Stattler Well look I mean Yeah Walder and Stadler This whole climate change thing

was Al Gore's big hoax going back to the 90s And did he win an Oscar? You want an Oscar, right? Yeah, I mean, and even Bill Gates has acknowledged that this is not an existential threat it can be dealt with, you know. So I think the bloom is off the rose in terms of that whole agenda, I'd say, at Davos. Although, to be sure, I'd say most people there still probably agree with Al Gore. I mean, they haven't changed their policies.

I'm talking about the European countries, even though tracking their economies. They are beholden to this net zero idea. It feels like they're in transition and scrambling to try to figure out where they, what direction they should go in. They don't feel they can trust America or that we're not there like reliable partner. We're not going to bail them out. We're not going to protect them, et cetera. And they're going to have to sort of get together as the mids, mid-tier economies, economies five through 20. And they're going to just have to build their own voting block, their own trading block and go it alone and spend their own money for their own defense.

It's called the EU. It has not been very successful because I think of their own policies, their energy policies and the open border policies. I'm not sure what going it alone means if you don't have best in class AI or best in class weapons. Absolutely. I think it means they're going to have to start investing in those things, buying weapons, making weapons.

I don't think it means much of anything. Yeah. I think it means Canada and the EU and all these other countries that feel, hey, we're, we're We're going to have our rug pulled by the Trump administration. We're just going to have to band together and create commerce. And we saw China and Canada do a big deal. And I think that's them just trying to say, hey, we have some sovereignty here. We're going to do a partnership with Canada and bring BYD cars in here.

And, hey, they'll be our big trading partner. So, you know, that's the reaction, I think, on the other side. But they don't. They don't want. They don't have as many degrees of force. freedom as they think they do, because great powers define the international system, not mid-tier powers, and a bunch of second- or third-tier powers cannot redefine the international system even if they ban together. And I think at the end of the day, the Europeans, they understand

the importance of the United States, and specifically they want to keep the U.S. in Europe. I mean, they're desperate to keep NATO together and to keep the U.S. interested and present in Europe. Because just remember, European history, before the Americans were there, it's like hundreds of years of wars and constantly fighting each other. Exactly. Colmating in World War I, World War II, basically the total self-destruction of Europe. And the most peaceful period they've ever experienced has been post-1945 when the Americans are there as the great pacifier. So they do not want us leaving. And I think they're willing to make large concessions to the U.S. to ensure that we stay there, even though they'll probably grumble about it.

But I think that to that end, I think that what President Trump was saying is, look, you guys got to share in the burden here. We've been paying for this whole thing. Yeah, no, it makes total sense. And they got their spending up to 3% for NATO and they're going to go to 5. So mission accomplished on that. Yes. And on Greenland, he's like, look, you know, we we. That was the best part of the speech.

He's like, do you want me to talk about Greenland? Yeah, you got to do something for us. This has got to be a two-way street. 45 minutes in, it's like, do you want me to talk about Greenland? I could talk about it. You ready? I'm going to talk about it right now. And then he starts talking about it. But then he starts calling it Iceland. And everybody in the room's like, wait, he wants Iceland too? And the whole buzz was Trump's going to take Iceland and Greenland. And then, you know, he sort of backed down, but we're not going to invade. And then there was like a sort of sigh of relief. But do you think they actually thought Sacks that he was going to invade Kornbath?

Greenland to take it? Well, I mean, I don't know. I think that obviously they thought it was a possibility, but the president took the use of force off the table. And yeah, I think you did feel a sigh of relief there. I think you're right. But I think that also, I mean, we don't know the details. They haven't been publicly reported, but there was some sort of meeting at Davos that was convened, I think, by the NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta, where they negotiated an acceptable compromise on the issue. So I'm sure we'll find out the details in due course, but it's safe to say that President Trump got enough of what he wanted that he was satisfied with what they worked out. I don't know how they just like, it's like Lucy with the football and Charlie. It's like he's going to pull the football.

Like he's just anchoring the negotiations at a military invasion and takeover. He obviously is just going to go for a lease. It's like they don't know it in your, you know, whatever we're in now. You're five or six. year six of Trump being president, like they should get it by now. He just anchors things at an impossible, insane level. And then he falls back to whatever he really wanted. It's a classic negotiating technique. All right, we got a lot on the doc. Let's get to work. Everyone wants to hear four venture capitalists and investors talk about the horrific situation in Minneapolis. So here we go.

For background last month, the DHS started an operation called Metro Surge. sending 3,000 federal agents into Minnesota to crack down on illegal aliens. Over the last three weeks, two Minnesotans were tragically killed in altercations with federal agents. January 7th, 37-year-old Renee Good was shot to death by an ICE agent. This incident involved Good accelerating her car, which was surrounded by agents at the time. We're still waiting for the final investigation on this one, but apparently three shots, one through the front windshield, perhaps two through the side. All these details are still being investigated. then, tragically on January 24th. Alex Preddy, also 37, shot and killed by two Border Patrol

agents, not ICE. Prattie was an ICU nurse at the local VA hospital. There's a ton of frame-by-frame breakdowns available. New York Times and Wall Street Journal did a good job on these. So I think maybe it's best for us to focus here on maybe the aftermath of all this and the resolution, but you guys can feel free to chime in on the frame-by-frame breakdowns if you like. In five parts, Stephen Miller tweeted that Freddie was an assassin trying to murder federal agents. A source told Axis that Nome said, everything I've done, I've done at the direction of the president and Stephen, Stephen, Stephen being Stephen Miller. Greg Bovino has been removed from duty and had his social media accounts turned off. President Trump has pivoted, evolved, and put Tom Homan in charge.

Quote, Tom is tough, but fair, and will report directly to me, Trump wrote. And at the time of this taping, which is on Thursdays, there was a press conference this morning. And here is what Tom Homan said. And after 30 seconds, we'll go to you, Sacks, for your reaction to all this. No agency organization is perfect. President Trump and I, along with others in administration, have recognized that certain improvements could and should be made. That's exactly what I'm doing here. So if we get these agreements in place, it means less agents on the street.

more agents in the jail. Matter of fact, I have staff from CBP and from ICE working on a drawdown plan. What does that look like based on the cooperation? Sachs are those. Well, first, let me say the deaths of Ritey Good and Alex Pruddy are regrettable and tragic. So are the deaths of Lincoln Riley, Jocelyn Nungeray, Rachel Morin, Victoria Harwell, Ivory Smith, and too many others to mention who are murdered by a criminal illegal alien. and the media won't ever tell you their names, but President Trump was hired by the American people to do a job, which is to seal the border and deport criminal aliens so that more of these strategies do not occur in the future. And this is a popular policy over 55% of the American people

say they want all illegal aliens deported, and over 90% want criminal aliens removed, and by criminal aliens are referring to the ones who commit additional crimes after they enter the country illegally. Now, this policy is working. Murders were down 20,000. 21% last year. It's one of the best years in record. And in most states, the process is smooth and doesn't make national news. And the reason for that is because local authorities are cooperating with ICE. But Minneapolis has taken a different approach. They've engaged in a campaign of, quote, massive resistance to federal authorities. So let's talk about what's actually happening there on the ground. I think the first thing to understand is that what's happening

is much more than just protests. And obviously, I have no problem with people peacefully protesting and making their opinions known, but that's not what's going on here. These are Antifa-style operations designed to thwart the enforcement of federal immigration law. They're highly organized. They're communicating in encrypted chat groups. There's stock and docks ice agents. They follow them around town. They surround them at their hotels. They use their cars to block roads. And they use bullhorns and whistles to alert criminals who are about to be arrested. Remember, ICE is a law enforcement agency. They have warrants to arrest known criminal aliens. Despite this rhetoric of them being like the Gestapo, they are going after specific named individuals for whom they have warrants to arrest.

These are dangerous missions, and these agitators are interfering and making these missions even more dangerous. Now, the media has tried to portray good and pretty as simply innocent bystanders or people who are peacefully protesting ICE policies, they weren't. They were foot soldiers in these Antifa-style operations, and most importantly, they brought deadly weapons to the fight. So Renee Good hit an officer with her SUV, which under a Minnesota law signed by Tim Walts himself in 2020, justifies the use of deadly force by an officer to defend himself. And Alex Prattie was even more reckless.

I think we've probably all seen the video by now where he sought confrontation. with ICE officials. He was kicking the car. He was in a rage. This wasn't his first time doing this. And any experience gunner will tell you that if you're armed and you're dealing with law enforcement, you have to be the world's biggest pacifist because you're putting your life in danger by making them fear that their lives are in danger. And I think the mainstream media didn't tell people these facts. They just presented highly selective camera angles, even airbrushed and face-tuned Prattie to make him appear to be a more, I guess, handsome victim, which is truly sick. Now, in a way, I feel sorry for good and Prattie because they were the victims of a

tinderbox that was created in Minnesota by the extreme rhetoric and decisions of Tim Waltz, Jacob Fry, and the political establishment. The local police in Minneapolis should have been allowed to keep conditions safe on the street by creating a permanent. and keeping protesters away from ICE officers who were executing lawful warrants of arrest, but the police were told not to. And then the agitator stepped in and they took advantage of the sort of vacuum of authority to physically intervene. So I think it was almost inevitable that some sort of tragedy was going to result

from this abdication of public safety. Now, why would Walton Frey want to risk such tragedies with their massive resistance? I think there's two reasons for this. This is the last point I want to make. First, they are desperate to change the subject from the billions of dollars of fraud that they allow to occur on their watch. Remember, we had Nick Shirley on the show just a few weeks ago talking about the $8 billion that was stolen by Somali fraudsters. And this campaign of resistance in Minneapolis has done a really good job of making everyone forget about that. But I think there's a second and bigger reason that applies, and I think it applies to national Democrats.

which is they want to thwart mass deportations because illegal immigrants are a vital part of their power base. And you can see this in the 2030 apportionment forecast, which just came out, illegal aliens count towards the census, which occurs every decade. And the census determines the apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes. And what you see in these maps is that citizens of blue states have been migrating to red states because those are blue states are failing. And as a result of that, blue states are expected to lose nine house seats and electoral votes because of the changing population numbers. Illegal aliens in blue states are propping up those numbers. And so, for example, in the last election, President Trump

would have won an additional nine electoral votes if we had an accurate accounting. So look, this is not about principle. This is bare-knuckle politics. The Democrats are playing for keeps. They don't really care how many innocent Americans get hurt or killed in the process. This is about thwarting a popular policy of deportations and sealing the border, which the American people voted for. So don't let the media fool you. Freeberg, Chamatha, you want to give your opinion on these two tragic deaths? Or not. I mean, I don't feel you're obligated to vomit on this if you don't want to. I'm happy to.

Nick, I sent a clip into the chat. Deported all immigrants who are here illegally, 55% of the New York Times. Marquette, 64%. CBS News, 57%. ABC News with a slightly different question, 56%. So what you're seeing essentially here is a very clear indication that a majority of Americans, in fact, when they're asked this blunt question, which I believe gets at the underlying feelings, do in fact want to deport all immigrants who are here,

illegally. There's no arguing with these different numbers because they're all essentially the same across four different pollsters. I think Sachs is right that there's a very, very vocal minority, but if we just put that aside, it's important right now to just stick to the facts. Democracy is supposed to be the will of the majority, but also defense and protection for the minority. In this example, the will of the majority is pretty clear, as the CNN clip just showed. Everybody wanted the southern border shut and the northern border shut and a structured path to deal with illegal immigration. David's right that that creates a cascade of second and third order effects that have huge implications with respect to the Democrats and their ability

to have and curate power. I don't know whether this is what's motivating them or not. I don't want to speculate on that. But the conceptual problem and the conceptual desire of Americans is undisputable. I think that's why Donald Trump won. Now, I think, though, we have to explore the tactics. I think the reality is that both of these two deaths were complete and total tragedies. And it has created such an upswell that it has the potential to spin out of control. and if it does that, it risks his ability to continue doing his job and delivering on the conceptual promise that everybody wants. The other thing is that I think that he has otherwise, the president, done an incredible job up until now. The fact that Tom Homan is going there is a really good thing.

He was the same person that was awarded a medal by Obama for how he managed Obama's deportation process. It's time to just get control of the process and dial down the temperature. Because the structural things that they are doing are correct. There are people here that broke the law. There are criminals that are here illegally. We need to remove them because that is the will of the majority. Now we just need to find a way of doing it that creates some freedom to operate for all of law enforcement so that these tragedies stop. That's my two cents. Okay. Friedberg, would you like to comment on this or pass? I'll comment. Can I just ask you to react to what Sack said, do you agree or disagree with his point about the Democrats needing to remove people

because they do count in the census and they increase the seats in the House? Elon's talked about this a whole bunch as well, that the immigration is being done to boost the voter rolls. I don't know enough about the census specifically because that occurs X number of years and if it's accurate at all. So I'll leave that aside and do some research on it. In terms of importing people for votes, this strategy does not make a lot of logical sense. And so many working class people voted Trump into office. And so many specifically Hispanic people, Mexican people, are all voting for Trump now because he's a populist and he appeals to that group. So if Biden and the Democrats were doing that for that reason, that makes no

sense, and also those people would have to become citizens in order to vote. And that's a 20, 30-year process. So, you know, they'd be playing an incredibly long game on that front. Unless there is cheating in the voting. Yeah. And we've talked about that as well here. Yeah, like for example, if there's no voter ID, you know. You know, the Heritage Foundation, I think, David, you work there at some point, right? You did an internship. That organization, that Think Tank has done tremendous research into this ever database. I think they've collected now 3,000 cases of voter fraud over a 40-year period. So really the whole concept of voter forward being able to tilt a presidential election is just ridiculous and has not been proven. I think Trump filed about

50 or 60 lawsuits and lost all 50 of them. So there's no credence to that. But, you know, I have a couple of thoughts broader on what we've seen. And I do actually agree with you, David. There should be voter ID everywhere. I don't think anybody should be able to vote without a driver's license. or ID. If you can't take the time to get ID, why should you vote? It doesn't make a lot of sense, right? Why do you think that's such a push on the other side, though, J-Cal? Like, what's the motivation for not having IDs? The stated... If it's not about getting people to vote that aren't a lot to vote. The stated reason, which I don't believe, is that it's more democratic and you want to get

as many people to vote as possible. But I don't agree with that. I think everybody should have ID. Yeah, like you've got to have ID to buy a beer, right? So... Yeah, I mean, to get on a plane, to, I mean, even to ride a train, like, you need an ID. I don't, I don't understand what this. I think the answer speaks for itself. I mean, to me, it's obvious. The reason why you prohibit, by the way, it's not just saying you can vote without an ID. They actually prohibit the people administering the polls from checking. There's only one reason to do that. You want to allow cheating, obviously. And one of the things that Doge found was that there were lots of illegal aliens being added to the social security roles. Now, they weren't necessarily collecting social security,

but in a lot of states- And they were actually paying into it. So it was quite the opposite. But my point is that when you get an SSN number, in a lot of states, all you have to do is check a box when you get a driver's license, so they also give to illegal aliens in order to be added to the voter rolls. So they are finding illegal aliens on voter rolls. But look, regards of where you are on cheating in elections, the census just counts total population. And then they apportion house seats and electoral votes based on total population, including illegal aliens. And there is data on this. Trump would have won the last election by an additional nine electoral votes if these changes had been made before the last election

in 72030. So hold on just to put a pin on that point. It's really important because what it means is that a future Republican would not need to somehow crack the Democrats' blue wall of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, right? So nine electoral votes is a lot. And it does put the presidency that much further out of reach for a future Democratic candidate. It provides a powerful incentive. And again, it's not just the electoral votes.

It's also these house seats. California would have lost house seats. I think it was like four if this had been recognized. Because again, there's been a huge migration. J-Cal, you know this better than anybody since you're one of the people who've left. The state is so badly mismanaged that people have been fleeing blue states in droves. And the fact that you've got illegal aliens then replacing that population massed that effect and allows these blue states to maintain their level of representation in the House.

That is a huge incentive. Freeberg, do you support the use of ICE agents, DHS, to go into these cities? And do you think they were too violent? And do you agree with that strategy that Trump's now, it seems like, pulling back? I mean, I know the answer. Okay, I'll be very, I'll be very, matter of fact. Yeah. Neither of these people should be dead.

It's sad that it happened. Who's to blame? Neither of these people should have been doing what they were doing. Federal law enforcement agents should not wear masks. They should identify themselves when asked. Ideally, they wear body cams like local law enforcement does. I like body cams. I actually like watching videos of police wearing body cams on YouTube and TikTok.

I think it's a very important way to hold law enforcement accountable to their work, there may be reasons why federal law enforcement can't do that if they're undercover and whatnot. They shouldn't have to identify themselves. But I think those are important ground rules. I think that federal law enforcement should have warrant or probable cause. They should not be allowed to randomly ask people for papers. I don't agree with that. If that's what they're doing, and I'm not saying that that's what I say, didn't say. Oh, no, that's what they were doing. That's all been proven. I don't know that. I don't know if that's been proven. Wearing masks, not identifying themselves.

That's not what I'm talking about. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. There have been a lot of claims made that they're going around, quote, rounding people up asking for ID and papers. I don't know if that's true. I have personally not been convinced of that. You may have seen something else, but I've not been convinced of that. But if that is what they're doing, there is no probable cause and there's no warrant attached to that. That should not be allowed. I think the mechanism for fixing that, the mechanism for addressing that is number one, to go to federal courts and file injunctions, which is actively happening through the legal process. and there's a due process that then would take place that would determine whether these agents are following the law and doing things by the rule of law or are not. And if they're not, injunctions will be imposed and they can't do what they're doing. Short of that, no one should take it into their own hands to obstruct law enforcement, federal or local law enforcement. I think that that is wrong. I don't think that individuals that disagree with a law or disagree with the actions of law enforcement officers should obstruct their actions. The correct path, is number one to protest peacefully.

Number two, to go to the courts and file injunctions. And number three, to change the law. To go to your local voting booths, vote for someone and change the law. I think it's totally okay for protesters to not like the law. There's a million laws and regulations and other bullshit that I fundamentally disagree with. But those don't give me the right to impose myself physically

in the driveway with a car blocking law enforcement from doing their job. if law enforcement was arresting a non-illegal immigrant murderer and someone did that, would people be up in arms? It's because people disagree with the law. And if you disagree with the law, you've got to change the law. And that's okay. Now, right now, it is the case that it is the law, that if someone came here without going through the immigration process as defined by the law, then they are technically here illegally. That is the law. That's what it is. And so there is a course, path or a point of view on how do you enforce that law. And that is what people are having disagreements over. And again, file injunctions if you don't like the methods, change the law,

if you don't like the law. My personal view on immigration, just so I can wrap this all up, I don't see how we're going to do this in a humane and just way of removing people from this country who have been here for a period of time and have paid taxes and have been good contributors to this country. I don't know how you're going to do it. I don't know how you're going to do without inciting a civil war. So I think the compromise has to be that there has to be a path to permanent residency and eventually citizenship for individuals who have been in the United States for some period of time, who have followed other laws, who have paid taxes and who have not taken advantage of public services that they are not supposed to use. With those conditions met,

there should be some path, otherwise we're going to have civil war. I think that separate to this, there's a bigger point to be made. And Ray Dalio has made this, and I we'll restate it and you guys can roll your eyes at this. But I think that there's a deep emotional driver to all of this. People look at this and they get incited. They get activated emotionally. Everyone I speak to is activated emotionally over this issue. And we have to ask ourselves the important question of why are people activated so emotionally right now. What is going on? What is the fundamental root cause of this? What is the fundamental root cause of this prediction model that Ray Dalio has talked about saying that there's a 35 to 40% chance of a civil war in the United States

based on predictions that he made in 2020. And it is rooted fundamentally in the fact that everyone to some degree feels some amount of oppression right now, and this is a manifestation of that oppressed feeling. That oppression comes from the fact that the world is racing ahead and people are not a part of it, that people feel like they're being left behind, and they see victims of that world and they want to act.

And I think we need to pay attention to that and be very cognizant of it, because I think fundamentally it is an inevitability that there will be a civil war if we don't, recognize it and address it and find some paths of compromise to solve these problems. Okay. I'm done. Super. So, ship it.

Chip it. Episode done. I mean, let's go home. So, yeah, I'm strongly in agreement with you. The police should not be interfered with. I said that here. And I said it on Twitter. You should stay home if you can't peacefully protest.

And also agree with you strongly. The police should be trained to de-escalate where body cameras, not wear mad. be trained properly, all that stuff. But I want to make three points here. And the first is, you know, President Trump has surrounded himself with a lot of really competent people, yourself included, David, Rubio, Bessent, Lutnik, Kushner. We had a lot of them here, even my pal, Chris Wright. But he's also surrounded himself with very inexperienced significance that he picked based on their loyalty to him. And that group needs to go because that group is sinking his second term.

I'll put on that list, Stephen Miller, Christy Noem, Cash Patel and Pam Bondi. These folks have been a disaster for Trump. They're not qualified to be in the positions they're in, and they have caused a lot of chaos. And back in August, I explained exactly how unpopular these, you know, ICE actions were. And I implored people, hey, stay home if you cannot be peaceful. If you want to record people, that's fine. But I predicted as well that somebody's going to get killed. And that these, these agents were acting just without training. They were not de-escalating, and they were, in fact, provoking a lot of this, which I think was part of the concept that Stephen Miller had, was to provoke these kind of reactions. Nick, you can pull up my first chart. Remember, back in October, I was talking about Trump's sinking approval rating back when these ICE issues were happening. The Epstein files weren't being released.

Then in November, I brought this up again. Trump's net approval rating hit 13%. And then same chart coming up now. He's negative 18%. And a lot of people like to use this term taco. Trump always chicken out. I don't like when people use that because I think they're trying to go to him on. I think he needs to react to these plummeting ratings here.

If you could play the Tillis quote, Nick. I were in her position. I can't think of any point in pride over the last year. She's got to make their own decision or the president does, but she has taken this administration into the ground on an issue that we should own. We should own the issue of border security and immigration, but they have destroyed that for Republicans, something that got the president elected, they have destroyed it through their incompetence.

David Miller is in the same boat. This guy, after doing the stupid comments he made about Greenland, getting the president in a difficult circumstance, is one of the people that came out publicly and said that, he said, that this guy was a terrorist before he had even talked with anybody on the ground. And that's clearly not the case now. So, I mean, it's just, I mean, Stephen Miller never fails to live up to my expectations of incompetence. And here's Murkowski with a similar opinion, another Republican. Senator, do you have faith in Christine Noem as DHS secretary?

I've already made a statement on that. Oh, I wasn't there for it. Yeah, I said that I've lost confidence in her. Do you think that President Trump should remove her from the position? Do you think she should resign? Obviously up to the president, I think we would be better served with new leadership. At the end of the day, Americans don't like to see this violence. They don't like cruelty.

They don't want chaos. The reason Trump lost to Biden, who's not a very strong candidate, is because of the general chaos people felt with the immigrant ban the last time. And people do want to see the border closed. and that has had a great effect, I think, on the country. And I think that's fantastic, and he should take a victory lap for that. But leadership starts at the top. President Trump put Stephen Miller in charge of all this. I think he's a bad actor. I think these people who he hired were picked strictly to do lawfare and to do this kind of sadistic, violent behavior to feed a MAGA base that's not going to keep Trump in office. And in fact, it's going to cause him to lose the second. to lose the midterms. So the easy solution, which I brought up here over and over again, is if you want to stop having people come into this country, you have to look at why they're coming to this country. They're coming to this country because they want to have a better life. That's why they're coming here. And that's why they'll pay a coyote $10 or $20,000 or $30,000 and

risk their own safety coming across that border, where many people die and are abused. So if you want to stop this, all you have to do is go to the business owners and find them. And if they keep hiring illegal aliens, you keep finding them and then you put them in jail. But you don't see Stephen Miller doing that. Why? Well, because a lot of those businesses are the voters who put Trump in office. They're Republicans. Now, yeah, sure, there's Democrat-owned business owners as well. But you could solve this whole problem without sending massed agents in to beat the shit out of people, to be violent, to provoke these kind of reactions. And that doesn't absolve people driving their cars into the police. That's horrible. And it's a terrible tragedy. and these people, as I've said, three or four times, should not go out and protest. But you could solve this.

If there are no job opportunities for illegal aliens, they will stop coming here. Finally, I agree with your point strongly, Friedberg, that we should be compassionate to the people who have been here 10, 20 years, and paid their taxes. I've said this here many times. They should be given a path. America is a country built by immigrants, for immigrants, including the three of you, my bestie immigrants. And we all came here illegally.

or our parents did and we didn't seek into the country. Yeah, absolutely. Now, you kind of gave this diatriat. I don't know why you've picked Stephen Miller as the vessel of your hatred. It's like you've... No, it's not hatred.

There's been a transference. There's been a transference of Europe. Just based on its actions. TDS to Stephen Miller derangement syndrome or something like that. If his actions were kind and compassionate... MDS. That's an MDS. If he was compassionate towards immigrants,

and recognize the importance of immigrants to this American story, I would be fine with it. It's just based on his behavior, David. I don't have TDS. You can name call all you want. I'm just basing it on your behavior one I see. You've decided to do this ad hominim against him. And look, the big picture is that throughout his career.

I'm basing it on their qualifications and a job. You're not really presenting, you're not really presenting evidence. You're showing what other people think. You're showing polling and then what's a few senators think. So you're basically, you're trying to build a case. Hold on. Hold on. Let me finish my point. You're basically trying to build a case against him by using the opinions and declarations of other people rather than actually presenting evidence and building that

case other than just a name call and say that he's not compassionate. The big picture is that I would say that Stephen Miller's been more correct about immigration than you have been over the last several years. For years, you were denying that we had an open border problem. Did you not? No, no. For one year, when the spike went up, I said, let's get the data on this because it doesn't make sense that it would triple year over year. And then we found out that it was, in fact, and with the new information, I changed my opinion and said, yeah, this is obviously happening. That was literally what happened. Well, I don't know. I mean, during the bind years, I remember we had a bunch of debates about this. And you were saying that all the position was, let's see the data. Because the data,

if you look, I played this chart on the pockets many times. We showed like the last four years. And then there was a spike. And I said, this doesn't make any sense. How did this spike happen? It's just my opinion. You don't have to have a, you can have a difference of opinion. Let me go back to the origin of the chaos in Minnesota. You don't see this happening in other states. And I just want to point out one of the major reasons why. So in other states, you know, take your pick. When you have an illegal alien and they get arrested, they get handed over to ICE or Border Patrol for deportation. That's what's happening. In Minnesota, the politicians have given an instruction not to do that. So literally you have criminals, people who've been arrested. There's a case that. that was just posted today of an illegal alien in Minneapolis who killed an innocent mother and severely injured to others back to back in drunk driving crashes. He did not have a valid driver's license, did not have insurance. He was arrested for vehicular homicide.

ICE asked him to be turned over to them, and the authorities in Minneapolis refused to do that, and they eventually released him. So that puts ice in the position and having to go out and find these guys and arrest them. That's how all of these operations started. And you make it sound like these guys are the Gestapo and they just randomly round

people up. That's not what's happening. They have arrest warrants with the names of specific people that they're going after. There are arrest warrants, but they're also, Stephen Miller told them to just go round people up at specific location. So there is that as well. And they've been trying to hit numbers that

they just can't possibly hit. You have to ask yourself, you have to ask yourself, why didn't we have, you have to ask yourself, I think, Sacks. Why didn't we have this kind of violence and unmarked people, breaking people's rights under Obama who did far more? I'll tell you why. You want to know why? Because Obama said that we should deport. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. I'm saying he was able to do it without sending mass agents in to beat the show.

No, the Democratic Party changed. That's what happened. 15 years ago, the position that Obama, can I'm just talking about the policing? You asked me a question. Why didn't this happen under Obama? Let me tell you the reason why. Why didn't the policing happen in the way it's happening? 15 years ago, the Democrat Party was still somewhat rational in this issue.

and it was basically a bipartisan position to support deportations of illegal aliens and not to have an open border. The Democrat Party changed their point of view on this issue. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about policing. Let me finish my point. Tom Homan has said over and over again, we don't want to go out on the street. It's dangerous. They don't want to be put in this position.

ICE has an incredibly dangerous job to do. Border Patrol has an incredibly dangerous job to do. By the way, the reason why they wear masks is because they're getting docks by these groups who are organizing with each other on, and they're being followed around. They're being stalked. They're being chased to their hotels. And these guys follow them around. They block their cars by interposing vehicles. They're interfering in official operations. They're interfering with the rest. And they're getting in physical altercations with them. This is very dangerous for ICE. They don't want to be in this position. But the reason why all of this is happening is because Tim Walts and Jacob Fry and the rest of these guys,

lieutenant governor, they are saying, do not cooperate with ICE. Do not cooperate with the board of telling local authorities in Minnesota, when you arrest an illegal alien, do not turn them over to ICE. It's better to release them. These people are such anti-ice zealots that they would rather release a killer onto the street than keep them in jail where they can be turned over to ICE. And that's the whole reason why they don't want to keep them in jail, because that would create a central repository, if you will, for ICE to go collect all these illegal aliens. Last year, there was something like 470 convicts, illegal aliens, criminals.

And I'm not talking about their crime wasn't breaking into the country. I'm talking about subsequent crimes that were released in Minnesota so they cannot be rounded up by ICE and deported. These people are zealots, and that is the source of the problem. And then on top of that,

you've got rhetoric by people like Tim Walz and the lieutenant governor calling ICE and border patrol agents who are just trying to do their jobs, the Gestapo and Nazis and riling people up. And I think that people like Alex Priddy or Renee Good, they're victims of this type of rhetoric. These are left-wing activists who are in this left-wing echo chamber, and they're barinating in all this rhetoric that's portraying law enforcement officials as Nazis, and they're imbibing this constantly to the point where they're full of

rage and anger. You see that video of Alex Priddy attacking border patrols. this is two weeks before he gets killed. He's kicking the car. He's like foaming at the mouth. He's in some sort of rage. This is someone who's emotionally disturbed. And he's got a gun on his waistband, which, look, every gun owner knows that you have to be exceedingly careful if you are carrying a weapon and then you are dealing with law enforcement. The last thing you want to do is go out looking for an altercation with them, which is what he did. And by the way, I think it's completely tragic that the two of them were killed. I don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see that happen. But again, they are victims of this political environment, this chaos that's being whipped up by the elected officials in Minnesota. This would not be happening if they simply turned over the illegal aliens in their custody to ICE and Border Patrol, which is all that they're asking for. I've said on this podcast like many times, but none of you will respond to it, why are they doing this instead of just fighting the business owners? Wouldn't that be a better policy? And you're in the White House. You're around these people. Why don't you tell them, why don't we do that? Why don't we just give fines to business owners who hire illegals and stop the incentive to come here? How do you know that they hired illegals?

How would you know that? Very simple. Then you know the individuals. It's super simple. You would just go do a little investigation. You go to the car wash. You videotape it like any other detective or any other federal agent or a local police officer would. And then you track those people down.

You very quietly go pick one or two of them up on the way home. You ask them for their papers or you go to the owner and say, hey, we have these six people. Here's their pictures. Here's the pictures of the six people. Show us their papers. Show us their social security number. That's all you have to do, Freeburg. Here's my proposal. You may have a point there, Jake out, you may have a point, but I'm not sure that it's good enough in the case of an illegal alien who's already been in this country committing crimes. Okay. Yeah, I mean, we'll agree our crimes. Hold on. If you have a drunk driver who has killed people through drunk driving and they're captured, I think it should be

turned over and deported immediately. But if you want to do big numbers, like big numbers, you could just go to a farm, you could go to a car wash, you could go to a restaurant, you take pictures of everybody coming in and out for their shift, you go to the business owner and say, we have these people. Can you show us their paychecks and their paystubs? All right, so we'll agree to disagree on some of this, and we'll agree that this is a tragedy and that we need leadership to calm these things down. And we need to agree on a very reasonable immigration policy, which is not what we have right now, in my opinion. All right, Claudebot has gone viral overnight. I have been clawed. I have been one Claude. I am all in on this. This is an open source project

created by a gentleman named Peter Steinberg. He's an Austrian developer and entrepreneur. So what is it? It's basically an open source personal assistant. Think like Siri. or maybe Jarvis. Have any of you guys used it yet? Has anybody installed it yet? I did. I spent 15 minutes and I save 15% of my car insurance. Are you joking?

You're sure. You installed it and then asked it to go, you know what's so funny, Nick, I posted this. The number of people that didn't understand that that was a joke. No, I understand it's a joke. Yeah. I know you did. Yeah.

But there was a bunch of people that were like, really? How did you do it? Can I do it? And then some people were like, wait, only 15%. And other people were like, wait, you set it up yourself. You didn't have somebody help. you. Guys, this is literally the greatest thing ever.

Have you installed it yet, Friedberg? No, I don't want to give an open source tool access to all my emails and messaging. Sacks, have you done it yet? No, because I'm concerned about the security issues, but I want to. I want to do it, but I'm concerned about the security. I've spent the last 72 hours doing this. I'm going to explain to you what we did at the company. It's mind-blowing.

Okay, so it is basically, think like an open-source Siri or Jarvis, right? you get into an interface and you can talk to a virtual assistant and it does things for you just like chat chippy t or xAI might but the way it works is you kind of load a virtual machine if you know what that is or you can put it on your mac mini you run this like a server then you start authenticating it with your services so gmail notion slack WhatsApp maybe even your password manager super dangerous nobody like claude or xAI or Microsoft would ever allow you to do this because it's so. dangerous, obviously. But we did this and we put it to work. Here's what we did. I created a virtual

podcast producer. And we made this persona and we created a new Gmail account, Sacks, a new Notion account, a new WhatsApp account, everything. We created like basically a virtual employee. We put it together. And we made it the producer for my new This Week in AI podcast. There's a little plug in there for it. So we had it start doing research on guests. So we said, hey, research is guests, right? Just like you can do it in an LLM. Then we connected it to the existing feeds, like the podcast feeds and the database of like people we've had on the show and like who's booked. Then we said, make a CRM sacks for all potential guests and suggest other guests. And it vibe coded a CRM for itself. Can you show this? I said, hey, do some research on

this, right? So then we start a thread with it with the actual producer, Oliver, who's working on this. So I said, do this guest research. It did all this guest research. And this is as good as like Nick or Lisa would do at a first pass, but it did it instantly. And then I made a prompt for it to like, and I was using this prompt, by the way, David, when we were in Davos for our guests. And so this like gets the company's name, the founder information, you know, look for their competitors, all the stuff that a producer would do over a day or two, do a timeline, give suggested questions, et cetera. So I teach it this. So here's Producer X, and it says, got it. That's what, that's a great guest research. And I said, okay, do the guest research on this person. It comes

back with that. And it gave me its media appearances, all the stuff I would want to do for research. Then I said, I think this would be- You're interacting with it like an agent. So how is it different than an agent? Watch. Okay, we're getting to it. So then I said, producer X, email Alex and let him know that I want to have a on this week in AI, CC me and C.C. Oliver. And it says, I couldn't verify the email, but I'm going to try this one. And it wrote this email. It sent the email. Then, after it sent it, did he respond? So here's the email to the guest. Oh, my God. Hey, Alex. Jason Calacanus wanted me to reach out. I love to have you on this week and I to discuss XO Labs. Your work on distributed inference on the

recent, like, did this like a little thing. Let me know if you be interested. So then. That's fucking crazy. He says. This guy says, sounds great. I'll be in touch. Then I said, here's what I want you to do. I want you. And we created a group called replicants. So now we've made five replicants at the company.

And today is like Replicant Day or Replicant Week. So I told it every time you do work for me, in the Replicant room, say what you did. And then also put it on your calendar. So now it's putting on its calendar what it did in timestamps. So he said, I did some guests. research here. And then yesterday I did this booking report and that I'm doing this AI round it, that I'm doing this. And then I set up and then producer Juan had it set up a ticker because we did this email ticker and did all that work. And the crazy thing is you can start

talking to it directly. So I can have a direct conversation with producer X and it learns. And now it knows everything. So we started one to be an SDR. And then we are giving it access to our CRM there. But it built its own CRM, David. It's building its own SaaS tools to solve its problems. Every time you add it to something, it gets smarter. So now we're making a LinkedIn for this persona. The LinkedIn is going to start adding people. People don't know that these aren't humans.

Yeah. It's insane. All right, let me give you a few thoughts. So I was paying close attention to the whole Claudebot freak out, you know, over the weekend. And, you know, again, I wanted to set it up really badly, but I was too afraid of the security issues to do it. it, but I was watching everyone else do it. And look, I think the takeaways for me are number one, that this will be the year of the rise of the personal AI assistant. Until now, AI has mainly come in the form factor of a chatbot, and it's been used as a research tool. Some people

have... Search. It's better search. There's kind of this niche case of fantasy chatbots where people actually like somehow talking to a chatbot, but really, it's about better web search, and it's about research. Now we're moving to a completely different form factor, which is, again, this AI assistant, that's an agent that can do things for you. And it's going to get better and better at doing different tasks for you. Everyone's going to have this amazing AI agent. Now, you know, who is the beneficiary of this market opportunity? I mean, there's obviously going to be some startups, like the guy who's doing Claudebot, which I guess he renamed it was mold bot or? It's called Maltbot now because Claude got upset.

Right. So in any event, it's Moltbot. now. But I think it's a tremendous opportunity for Google because the question is who has your data. Google has all my email, my calendar, my documents, which is exactly the stuff that I would want to integrate with Claudebot if I believed it was safe. Obviously, I've already made the determination that Google is safe because they already have all my data. So I think Google is in a tremendous position to offer a personal AI system that's connected with your email and calendar for those of us who are using G Suite and so on. Obviously, there'll be opportunities for other companies as well. But I think this is going to be such a big product that it may become

the dominant form factor of AI, meaning more popular than the sort of research-oriented chatbot. Speaking from the policy point of view, I think it's going to change the policy debate around AI because so much the policy debate over AI is about fighting the last set of battles around social media. The question and answer modality. It's sort of treating AI as like a form of social media. I mean, I hear policymakers say all the time, what are you going to do to protect kids against predators? And it's like, well, wait, what predators are you talking about? This is not social media, right? I mean, I understand if you want to protect kids against, I don't know, a fantasy chat bot that's recommending they do bad things, but it's just, it's very different, right? This is just a completely

different modality. And I think that the rise of agents will make that clear that we're dealing with something that's not social media. Maybe there's some analogies to the previous set of policy battles that were fought over social media, but I think it's quite different. So I think Claudebot is a breakthrough. I think it's a really interesting proof of concept. And we'll also have to see exactly who the big winners are here. I think what's interesting is that if I said to you, hey, there's going to be an AI personal assistant, you would have some point of view in your mind on what that means. It's like, oh, it can, you know, change my calendar, tell me about my travel, read my email for me, summarize that kind of stuff.

But what I think people don't realize, it's almost like the first time you use FSD and your Tesla or the first time you used an iPhone, you realize that it's so much more that it widens the aperture of what's possible, that it's not just the assistant in the way that you might otherwise be thinking about it, but it's like this super worker.

And the super worker, like to J-Cal's point, it does both scheduling, calendaring, ideation, knowledge work, creates new code, creates CRM tools, books your travel. it does everything. And then if you start thinking about having an army of superworkers, you're like, oh my God, what's possible? And now think about what Elon's doing.

Yesterday, Elon shut down the Model S and Model X production lines in Fremont. And by the way, you know, a year ago, I'd never owned a Tesla. And I was so blown away with FSD that in the last week, we bought two more Model X's. So now everyone in my family, we're all on Tesla because the experience is so good. But they're shutting down the Model X lines to make Optimus. So if you've got the same thing that J-Cal is talking about and experiencing,

but you've actually got it in physical form in addition to digital form, that's the future where everyone has a super workforce and you put two optimists in your garage and they build and run a business for you. And then everyone becomes an entrepreneur.

What was my prediction, Jason? Oh, that they would merge all these companies and then this week it's happening. It's happening. Apparently, or I shouldn't say it's happening. We don't know it's happening. Maybe, maybe. But beep, beep, beep.

Between this and my copper prediction, now I'm about to retire. You know copper's up 26% in a month? Oof, uh. What is that as an annualized I-R-A? Check this out, Sam. We invited somebody from Kraft Ventures on, and I forgot who's from Craft Ventures

is going to be on this week in AI, so it said, can you tell me who's doing it? And I said, oh, I couldn't find it. I said, oh, it's in the Notion database. So it goes, and it found it. Oh, Mike Robinson from Craft Ventures is on February 24th.

And then there's also Brian from Kraft or whatever, but he was on a different liquidity roundtable. And I said, hey, can you email Mike? And I want to do a pre-show call with him, guest his email, sent it. I said, C.C. Heidi. I haven't given it access to my stuff. And it said, oh, do you want to get his top three times, all this stuff?

It's crazy what's going on here, folks. I would say out of 50 hours a producer does a week, this does 40 of them. And of what an SDR does, this does 95%. this is going to be crazy because it keeps learning. Now, your API bill is going to be nuts. The first day we did this, we hit like $100. I think it's going to be like $1,000 a day in API calls.

So my team's like, hey, this is a lot of API calls because people are going crazy inside Slack and making all of these agents. Good news. Kimmy 2.5. We are ordering Mac studios, the really powerful studios, with like Mac's memory on, and they're putting Kimmy.

Is that the new open source one? Kimmy K2.5. Yeah, we're putting Kimmy on them. We're going to have free. Free. And then according to people online, like 95% of all these queries can be done for free with Kimmy. You'll save 90%. It's crazy.

It's really crazy. This is independent, by the way, of whatever LLM you want to use. You can swap out LLMs. You can route it to different LLMs. You can do whatever you want with it. I tried to have it create Reddit accounts for me. Like, I want a Reddit account to go do research. And it's like, I can't do that. It's against the term of service.

I don't think people understand how important this Kimmy K2.5 moment is. Wait, what is Kimmy K2? Just to set some context, right? So I think the last few years, we've all kind of lived in a world of what I would call black box AI, meaning you go to your favorite chatbot, basically. You put in a prompt, and you press enter, right? And all of those things go to proprietary models. And they're excellent.

Open AI has some, Anthropic has some, Google has some, and they all give you back in the answer. Super powerful. But the important thing that we don't know to care about right now is that all of that stuff is gated. What does that mean? You don't own the keys. You don't own the blueprints. You have no idea what's actually going on. And what Claudebot demonstrated this week is your one terms of service update away from everything

breaking, right? Because at one point, Anthropic didn't like what was going on. and they said, no, this is not allowed. So we've talked about this battle between open source and close source. So all of the models that have been winning, the black box models, are closed source models. But open source is important because it's transparent. It gives everybody their own sovereignty, whether you're a company and frankly, really, more importantly, whether you're a country, it gives you control of your own speed.

It gives you a lot of execution control. You can audit the weights of the models. It allows you to host it on your own hardware. And the most important thing is the data never leaves your control. So that's why open source was really important, but it was always kind of like an underdog. And it wasn't particularly good. So this week, you wake up, you go to the office, and Kimmy K2.5 is important. So this is why it's so important because it was incredibly profound.

It's a trillion parameter mixture of expert model. when you farm out work, the proprietary models keep that agentic layer kind of secret. Kimmy K2.5 was like, okay, look, here's this thing called agent swarm. It's a technology that we built. That's also now public.

And it allows you to create all, you know, a hundred subagents. And what that allows you to do is basically solve any complicated multi-step problem in parallel. So I think this is the moment now, if I had to make a prediction, I think there is the clear shot

across the bow of close source, and I think open source can win. Why? Yes. Because when Kimi K2.5 is accessible, it democratizes something, this trillion parameter reasoning, that right now you could not otherwise get.

Now you can do vision to code, you can do massive context windows. It's really unbelievable. And it's available to everybody. And to just build on it, you're exactly correct. And I think it's a very big deal. You can run it. This is the other thing. What are the two limiting factors been here? I'm not a big fan of like these local hostess models. I think it's all bullshit and janky. It's all like kids mucking around. Which models? I think running these things locally are stupid and janky. The whole point of open source is to go and take them into these huge data centers is to use next gen silicon. And we talked about

this last week or the week before, where again, post-GROC, what I think will happen is you're going to see an explosion of decode silicon. If you take these next generation systems and you marry them to open source, you're going to cut the cost of AI by 90%. And when you do that,

Jason, your bill is going to be $10 a day. Yeah. And you're just not going to stop. Here's the interesting thing for me. Like, back to this, like running it. Like, there are now people who figure, out how to daisy chain the Mac Studios. So people are, you can see there's two stack there. People are starting to stack these. This is commodity hardware running open source. There's

two advantages to this. One, we have control of all the data. We have it on our own hardware. We can run it infinitely. And these things are only getting better. The M5 chips coming to these Mac studios. And if you want more power, you stack it up. And then the open source models are getting easier. So what's going to happen is 90% or 95% of our jobs are going to go to this local hardware. We'll control it. We don't have to worry about our information going up to Sam Olman. I canceled all of my OpenAI accounts, $25,000 gone. It's a matter of time until the big model makers create an incremental revenue stream for guys like you, Jason, to license back all your prompt and response data. And you'll probably make enough to pay for all the costs of

hosting and running these models anyways. Yeah. Anyway, this is like, feels like it's a very big moment. It's a big, it feels like a very big moment. And then, you know, let alone if, when do you think, Freeburg, we get it on here? When do we get it on our phones? When we'll be running Kimmy? We're not even talking about a lot of the architectural changes that are happening that we've talked about in the past.

There are papers that indicate we could probably go down by 70 to 100x in terms of compute need in how the model actually runs. So yeah, ultimately these things end up on the iPhone running locally and you don't need to go to the cloud. By the way, just having our nation's AIs are on the line here, I think this has a dramatic effect. If you play all of these PAPs out on the way a lot of these states have written their idiotic legislation, where those legislative approaches encompass strictly the view of AI being a chatbot interface run by a single company running a model in a data center. and if all of the models end up running locally on machines in open source, different context, different use cases, all of, like we said from the beginning, all of the bullshit, idiotic,

dumbass takes by legislators on what they think they need to regulate and how go out the window, or they create a lot of confusion on what's actually going on in the real world, and it puts us at risk. I strongly endorse the effort by those in the administration to pass a federal AI preemption law that avoids all of this nonsense in the states and the local government. And I think that this evolution of AI from being centrally hosted in data centers by closed models through chatbot interfaces, all of those layers break. You start to recognize very quickly why you need to have federal preemption on this stuff because people get way too ahead of it and it's going to limit innovation. Yeah.

Did you see? Well, obviously, I agree with that. And again, just to build on that point, you can't underestimate how much the policy debate in Washington has indexed on a single use case. Which was a niche fantasy chatbot application. Right. That's all that people know. Yeah, it's all they know.

That turned into horror stories. I mean, legit horror stories. But again, that is just not the predominant use of AI. And it's certainly not going to be in a year. One way to think about it is imagine if the internet came out. And the only thing that happened on the internet for the first three years was like pornography websites and like just like, and then people are like, okay, we got to regulate like the internet. And it's like, hold on a second. This is an idiotic use case. Perhaps we should take a

zoom out and think about what the internet could enable and all of the other use cases. And legislation needs to be crafted with a bigger view. And perhaps it's a little too early to make those judgment calls. Yeah. You got to wonder what impact this is going to have on the valuations of these companies. I mean, if you can run this stuff locally on your own hardware, you can rack it or put it in a virtual machine and open source wins, it's going to change the economics of everything. And the people I'm talking to in startups, which is where you always see the most efficient use of technology, they're all using Kimmy and what was the other one. Let me ask you a question about that, actually, Tramoth. So Kimmy K2, powerful model, but it is a Chinese model, or at least it originates in China. Obviously, once it's open source, people can fork it and make their own. But does that concern you, particularly around the use case of coding?

because what if there was a secret prompt in the model? Zero-day attack or something. Well, it's like something built into the model that's secret, that could inject corrupted code. And, you know, so much code's now being written by these models in such volume that, I mean, humans in the beginning were checking it all, but now even the founder of Cloudbot said he doesn't even check all the code because he can't personally supervise all of it.

So as AI coding becomes a bigger and bigger percentage, right now is probably what, like 50%. As it goes to 99%, no one's even checking it. You have to really worry about prompt injections or prompt code injections. I think you're bringing up an important point. Right now, we overly rely on evals to tell us how good a model is. And I don't think we've developed a standard to, I mean, the big model companies do it internally. But the safety teams who are responsible for red teaming these models don't really work as a broad coalition.

everybody has their own version of what they do to make sure that their own models are good and perform it. I think that there's an opportunity because somebody has to be able to take an open source model. Let's just say you're France and you're like, wow, where am I in this whole AI race? I'm nowhere. We have a bunch of applications that we want to develop and we need our own sovereign AI stack. And so, okay, we'll take Kimmy K2.5. what do they do to your point sacks to get complete assurance that that model is reliable and safe under all weather conditions? Honestly, the answer is I don't know what they would do right now, but that's

the opportunity because somebody has to be able to say, okay, look, we're going to sandbox it in the following way, we're going to run it under all these race conditions, we're going to get to all these corner cases so that we can tell you that it's actually good to go and then you can use it. But how long will that take? And then by that time, are we on Kimmy K-3? And then what is France supposed to do? I don't know. So these are complicated questions. But yeah, we do need an entire reimagining of how you red team some of these open source models, obviously. And there's open source models being made here in the U.S. too, by the way. Exactly. No, no, no. Meta's doing them. Wherever it comes from. You're going to need AI models to look for corrupted code and to do the security e-vals that you're talking about and it's going to have to be continuous monitoring. The good thing about open source is that when one person discover, a bug or a flaw or whatever, they share it with the community

and then it gets patched globally. The other problem with open source, though, right now is you can't really fork it and make it your own. Why? Because there's so much investment by Moonshot, that's the company that makes Kimmy K2 in that example. But you'll have so much drift in one version, your fork will be worthless.

So why would you do it? So again, it goes back to Sacks. We have to be able to say, okay, moonshot will provide Kimmy K2 and every update thereafter, but now we need to stress test it, and we need to red team it, and we need to be able to say

that this thing is bulletproof. And right now, there is no clean way of going to a third-party vendor to do that in a quick, reliable cycle. And that's a business opportunity for somebody.

Well, just speaking of the business opportunity, I think there are a number of American AI companies that are working on open source models. It is a gap that we have. Yeah.

And that is an opportunity. I mean, look, if you're running critical infrastructure, I don't think you want to be using a Chinese model. period on that critical loans or structure. I think if you can get it validated by an American company that's trustworthy, then it's no longer really a Chinese model.

Chinese contributed some really great ideas, and now there's a branch that you can use. I think it's just hard to ignore how good this stuff is now. It feels like this was a turning point this week. Okay, I want to get to one more important story. The dollar has dropped as gold and silver and copper have ripped. Dollar index is down 10% in the last year. hit its lowest level in four years on Tuesday. Trump was asked if the dollar declined too much, his quote, no.

I think it's great. Wall Street thinks Trump wants a weaker dollar to boost U.S. manufacturing and exports. Obviously, we have a weaker dollar. That means the stuff from the U.S. is cheaper. Foreign stuff becomes more expensive. And we have a situation here, Freiburg, that you've talked about. Money printing has increased to $2.5 trillion a year. Trump wants to print an additional $500 billion more.

that would bring us close to $3 trillion for the military, and money has poured into gold and silver, which have way outperformed the S&P shout out, Vinnie Lingham. Freiburg, your thoughts on dollar devaluation and what we're saying. Yeah, so people talk about the market going up, but I'll use an analogy, if you live on an island, and there's two huts on the island, and there's a bunch of shells that people are using for trade,

each house is going to be worth a certain number of shells. And then if people went and found a whole bunch of more shells, the price per house would go up in number of shells. But there's just more shells in the supply and effectively you've inflated everything. And that's effectively what's gone on with the U.S. fiscal condition. We've talked about this many times, but I think it's always worth a rehash. In a democracy like we have for the past 250 years, without adequate constitutional constraints, it has always been the case that overtime spending goes up, government spending goes up. And this is because in a democracy, people ask for their government to do more every year. And as they ask for their government to do more every year, the government agents who are elected

say, okay, here you go. And they spend more. And eventually when the borrowing capacity gets unlocked, which is what happened in the United States. When we went off the gold standard, you borrow like crazy, you print money to fund those borrowing costs. And you use that fundamentally to drive the next voting cycle, which is to give people more and more of what they want. But eventually the bill comes due. And in the United States, the bill is coming due. Let's start by looking at the money supply chart. This is the M2 Money Supply chart, showing the rapid rise in dollars in supply as a function of the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, making loans to banks, ultimately to fund federal spending. I mean,

really an extraordinary number. And if you look at the M2 Money Supply chart going back to 1960, 1955. And you can see post-COVID, we were hoping that we would have resolved and sort of reduce the money supply by some amount. But COVID really created this accelerating mechanism and, you know, we're back on track in the last couple of years to increasing the money supply. And so over time, the U.S. dollar gets devalued as there are simply more dollars in the market and U.S. presuries gets challenged.

So if we take a look here, around the world. central banks have decided that they no longer want to hold U.S. treasuries. And so this is the value of gold versus treasuries in central banks in their inventory. So we are now seeing that for the first time in history or in modern history. That's not accurate. It's not like they're selling. This line just shows it stable per se, right? It's more that the incremental buying is in real assets. Yeah, but the dollar, the dollar value is also adjusted. So fundamentally, I mean, one way to think about this is the relative value of central bank holdings around the one. world, we now see gold eclipsing U.S. Treasury. So now gold is a larger share of the holdings.

Yeah. So now the gold is a larger share of the holdings of central banks. If you look at the next chart, which is just over the past year, as J.Cal pointed out, this is the dollar index. So it's the dollar against a basket of foreign currencies has declined, you know, from a index of about, call it 109, down to 96 today. This chart actually looks at, so what is the U.S. stock market trading at. And instead of trading it in U.S. dollars, what if you just look at the U.S. stock market, the total value in ounces of gold? And so if we had the gold standard still, and if we functionally converted stock market value from dollars back into gold, you can see that the stock markets in the United States over the past years, so this is about seven and a half years,

going back to the pre-COVID era, is actually down, down pretty substantively from the pre-COVID era. So stock markets are fundamentally down. Everyone's cheering, clapping, bouncing up and down. Stock markets are up. And I'm going to tell you why this is important in a minute. And everyone's, you know, jumping up and down saying, great, the stock markets up. The stock market's up in dollar denominated terms. But if you look at the stock market relative to gold, it's actually down. And the selloff is not just in the stock market relative to gold, but you can actually look importantly at the metric that we all should care the most about, which is U.S. Treasury yield. So this is the 30-year. So the 30-year yield is now at 4.9%. The average U.S. government's cost to borrow today is 3.3%. So if we end up needing

to roll all of the U.S. government debt, assuming we take on no new debt, which we know is not the case, $39 trillion of debt outstanding, the federal government level today, and it had to get refinanced at this rate, we would have an incremental annual cost to service the debt, just the interest on the existing debt of roughly $700 billion a year. Incremental cost to service existing debt as interest rates climb from 3.3 to 5%. And so fundamentally, this is about 70% of the current defense budget. It's about 10% of the overall federal budget. It's a significant percentage of US GDP, about 3% of US GDP. It's a substantial number, and it creates the spiraling problem that we're in. Now, I just want to make one final point. So there's this de-dollarization moment.

it's always worth having a reflection on it, but I just want to tie it back to Minnesota, Donald Trump, and socialism. And I think it's important for us to just highlight that if you own assets, like we do, the four of us, we own stocks, we own real estate, we own other assets, as the dollar devalues and everything inflates in value, our asset prices go up. And we get wealthier and wealthier and wealthier. the majority of Americans do not own assets. They are net asset negative.

As a result, they live off of income, and they do not benefit from the de-dollarization like asset holders do. And this is what is ultimately fueling populism in the United States. And the populism in the United States is what is driving socialism, and the response to those behaviors is what Donald Trump elected to some degree, and the response to the Donald Trump actions is what's driving the civil unrest in Minnesota and other places. And I fundamentally believe that much of the unrest, the civil unrest, and ultimately this divide in this country is driven by the fact that de-dollarization, because of excess government

spending, ultimately leads a majority of people in this country to feeling oppressed and left behind because they're seeing a few people in the country accelerate their net worth, like all of us here, and there's no way for them to catch up because they don't actually own assets. So I'll be honest with you guys and make a confession. I was kind of at, I was at the gym this morning on the treadmill. You were at the gym? Yeah. And while I was there, I was actually thinking about the wealth tax stuff that's going on in

California. And I wonder if it may be an inevitability in order to keep the United States from going into civil war. I mean that very wholeheartedly. Like, I just don't know if there's a way of solving this fiscal problem without a functional redistribution of wealth. And the question is, can you do it violently or nonviolently? And if there's a nonviolent path, I think that's probably the preferable path. Did you ever think about violence picking up some of those weights? We can leave that in or take it out. The problem with that is, look, you know where this California wealth tax is going, right? It's not going to the quote unquote people.

it's going to these special interests who've been looting the state for decades. Audit everything before you raise taxes. It's very simple, folks. Audit everything. I mean, if the money's going to waste, fraud, and abuse and special interests, then how do you solve the divide problem? I mean, I guess the ones that the special interests are capable of organizing are able to extract, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. In fact, everything gets worse because those government's special interests generally rigged the system in their favor in a way that actually actually raises the cost for everybody. So you look at California, everything's performing worse. Can we pour one out for David Freeberg's favorite government program?

Free beer. Free beer. Free beer. For 55 homeless people suffering from the shakes. And they spent $6 million on it, but it's over. A year. Six million a year. Six million a year for 60 hobos to get beer because they had the shakes.

The dream is over. the dream is over, Friedberg. No more free beer. By the way, I think Sachs' point is the right point, which is the resolution to this isn't a fair and reasonable redistribution of assets. It's fundamentally a moment of extraordinary theft when there's this massive movement of capital like this through a centralized system, like the government. There's no free market transition of capital.

And as a result, you end up most seeing a large percentage of it go into theft back into the hands of a few who were really good at capturing the same. that money as it comes out of the government's coffers. That's a good point. You've diagnosed this many times. I mean, look, Texas and Florida do a better job for their population, collecting half as much in taxes per capita as California does, and having no income tax or capital gains tax. That's because if you commit fraud here, we put you in a firing squad. That's how it works. Right to the firing squad. We're going to go to the range. Let's go to the one. Come by, Sachs. Come by the ranch. I have a shooting range.

Did you guys see that Matt Mayhan entered the California gubernatorial race? He's running for governor. He's that I ain't for the governor. Yeah. What does it mean? Who is he explained to the audience why this is important? He's the mayor of San Jose. The group chats are on fire.

Yeah, he's much more of a moderate and he's not a union-captured candidate. Oh, here's a polymarket. Yeah, here's a polymarket. So Matt Mayhan announced this morning, very late entry to the gubernatorial race. Katie Porter is kind of the, you know, the output. of the Democratic machine. Tom Steyer is the billionaire climate change advocate. But Swalwell, you know, the congressman from the Eastman. Has it better virtue? He doesn't want to signal. He's literally like Christmas lights blinking. Tom Steyer.

Look, if Mayhan, is that the right way to pronounce his name? Yeah, Matt Mayhan. Matt Mayhan. California has a jungle primary, right? So everyone's running at the same time. There's no separate lanes for Democrats or Republicans. If he ends up top two, let's say it's him Swalwell, I think he'll win because all the Republicans will vote for him. They'll go for the more centrist candidate. We had a political strategist over for dinner. There's a version where the top two people could be both Republicans actually right now. Current course and speed, the top two vote getters are trending to be both Republican candidates. I don't think that'll last long. Yeah. I like the Karen. The Karen's the most entertained. She's the one who said, get out of my shot.

That's the one. Katie Porter. To get out of my shot one? Yeah, she's tumbling. She's tumbling. Yeah, she's not doing well. She's coming down in the boat. She's not likable. And she's And I think everyone sees right through her as being, you know, effectively captured by California institutions. But Mayhan and Swalwell, much more independent. But I think it's going to be a battle between the two of them. Just to go back to your point, Jamal. So what's interesting is there are two Republicans running for governor of California, Chad Bianco, who's a sheriff, and then Steve Hilton, who's a political commentator used to be on Fox News. They're both at about 15%, which actually puts them in the lead or close to the lead because the field so fragmented right now.

Exactly. The problem that they have is, so I guess if the field stayed permanently fragmented, yes, they could be in the runoff. Could you imagine the melting minds? Yeah, but that's not going to happen as much as I would like it to because the Democratic field's going to coalesce. And if it doesn't coalesce, the party machine will get together and they'll tell a bunch of people to drop out and get real. They'll shift. And they'll basically shift it. So the problem with the Republicans is. And it actually would be better if there was one Republican instead of two, because they need to be at like 30 percent, right? But, you know, they're each going to get 15 percent. They have more of a ceiling, is what I'm trying to say, right? Yeah, that's true. That is true.

Yeah. It's only the final two that make it into the general. So if the rest of the Dems literally stay equal and there's five Dems that are at like five to 10 percent, you could end up seeing the two Republicans in the top two spots. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think you're going to end up with five Dems at 10 percent. I think what could happen, though, actually, is it's probably better that you have two Republicans rather than one because the disaster would be, let's say you end up with Swalwell and one of the Republicans in the runoff, then Swalwell definitely wins. That's what always happens, right? The best chance for Matt Mayhan is that it's him versus either a Democrat or Republican, actually. And then if he's up against a Democrat,

a more liberal Democrat like Swalwell, the Republicans will support Mayhan and he'll win. And if he's up against a Republican, then he'll also win because all the Democrats will support him. I remember, this is like a plus 20 or 30 blue state. And by the way, he is such a good guy. He's been such an effective mayor of San Jose. You know, he cleared up homelessness. I mean, his actual work running something stands out amongst the rest of these folks. So I think he's got a real shot, sacks at moving up real fast, even though he's coming in.

Well, yeah, look, if he plays his cards right, he could win. I mean, look, I think there is a path here for California restoration. You get someone like Matt Mayhan as governor. Maybe Rick Caruso takes another shot in running for mayor in L.A. I think everyone recognizes that Karen Bass has been a disaster. She, you know, aided and abetted the burning down of the palisades. And then if you defeat the wealth tax so that the... Wait, did Trump just take over the rebounds?

Then you could have a path. Did Trump just take over the rebuilt in Pacific Palisades within executive order? Did I see that in my feet? He did, yeah. Well, you know, there's been a very... small number of permits granted. I mean, how long has it been? Like 18 months now? So retarded. Wait, so, Sax, would you move back if there was a great restoration in California? I feel like somehow it's just not going to happen, you know? It's like, it's over. Not in our

lifetime. I feel like the fact that you're telling me that Matt Mayhan is this great candidate and, you know, the whole tech world sitting get behind him, I'm sure that's true. And then somehow I think it's the reason he's going to lose. And I think, you know, we'll end up with swall walls. You're so jaded, Saxx. I think that somehow, Swallow is considered to be kind of a lightweight and a pretty dim bulb. Friend of God, Eric Swal, come back anytime. Who interviewed him with me? Did you interview him with me?

Yeah, I did. You did. You did. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, just manifestly not up to the challenges that are going to manifestly. California in the coming years. You need someone really stellar. to clean things up after the fiscal insanity of the Newsom years.

Well, look, I'll restate this on the show very clearly. California has a trillion dollar fiscal cliff coming up because of the pension obligations. I don't know if you guys know this. I'll make this one point. Very important to know. They once tried to change the benefits, the pension benefits, and they lost a court case. And so there's precedent in California state court that you cannot change pension benefits on the date that someone was hired.

You can never change their future benefits. Really important to know. So all of the benefits that have been given to every California public employee up to this day or that they've been promised, they are promised for life. And you're not allowed to take them out. And they cannot be disposed of except for some form of bankruptcy. And there is no mechanism by which the state can declare bankruptcy. So fundamentally and functionally, there are two ways that California can be saved.

Number one, you pass an amendment to the Constitution to fix this pension liability problem. and number two is the state has the ability to declare bankruptcy. Everything else is all about how long are you keeping the state alive for? Well, I support that change to bankruptcy law. I just think it'll be hard to get. But, you know, we could try. And look, if you had a governor of California come to the federal government and say we would like this, then there's a much higher chance of it happening.

But actually, I think one question for you to ask and evaluating this is what does Gavin Newsom want? Because obviously, he's running for president in 2028. you know, who would he like to replace him as governor, you know, and obviously he doesn't want a Republican because that would be a rebuke, you know, does he want Swalwell? Does he want someone who will appear even weaker and stupider than him? Or does he want someone like Mayhan who will be appearing to clean up the state? I think he might want the idiot. Although it's a tough, it's a tough choice for him. She'll just scream. I like Kevin Corder. He also doesn't want state to fall apart while he's running for president because he might be playing for that too.

So does he want someone like Compton like Mayahan who's criticized him? Because Mayan has criticized Newsom on things like homelessness, right? So Gavin is super thin skin. They can get past that. I don't know. Gavin is super thin skin, so I'm sure he resents that. So probably the machine gets behind Swalwell, even though it probably means a train wreck for the state. But we'll see.

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a good idea. Yeah. I think he would want Karen. But this is a big opportunity for tech to flexes political muscles to see. Yeah, let's see if they can do it. Let's see if they can do it. It's not just tech. It's anyone that doesn't want an establishment governor.

And I think that includes Hollywood. It includes agriculture. It includes large swaths of the state's economy. So let's see what happens. All right, everybody. The all in event series continues. All in Summit, Los Angeles, September 13th to 15th. Tickets are now taking applications.

So join us in September. And if you are a venture capitalist, LP in funds, sovereign wealth fund, endowment, we're going to be having our first All In liquidity event, May 31st to June 3rd. Go to all-in.com slash events to apply for a ticket to liquidity as well.

And we'll see you all next time on the world's greatest podcast, the All-In podcast. Go ahead and subscribe to our 1 million and subscriber channel on YouTube. That's right. YouTube just broke $1 million. All right. Love you, Basties.

Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Love you, Bruce. Brain man, David Sachs. Open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Bess. I'm going to have one big huge orgy,

because they're all just like this sexual tension, but they just need to release them out. What? You're a beat. We need to get merchies are back. I'm going to. Oh, me.