TBPN Live - Interest Rates Spike, Politicians Take Sides on the AI Safety Debate, Time’s AI Cover | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: September 15, 2026

Diet TBPN delivers the best of today’s TBPN episode in 30 minutes. TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with each episode posted to podcast platforms right after.Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” the show has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella.TBPN is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comPublic - https://public.comCisco - https://www.cisco.comConsole - https://www.console.comCrowdStrike - https://www.crowdstrike.comFigma - https://www.figma.comMongoDB - https://www.mongodb.comNYSE - https://www.nyse.comRailway - https://railway.comShopify - https://www.shopify.com/Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

Top thing on my mind today is figuring out what's going on with interest rates, the high interest rate phenomenon. We've had zero interest rate policy, ZERP, the ZERP era ended. Now we're in the HIRP. I don't think we should say that one. That doesn't sound very good. But the high interest rate policies, the high interest rate phenomenons are upon us. What's going on? It's very obvious what's going on. Take one look at the chart. It's the war. You can see the U.S. attacks Iraq. Iran in the beginning of 2026. Interest rates are low.

We should pull up this chart from the Wall Street Journal. It gets more dramatic every time they show this chart. This one right here, Jordi. Take a wild guess. What's driving interest rates? It is, of course, the war, which starts there, and then boom, up into the right from then on. But there's other questions about what's going on. Is AI, is the buildout having an effect here?

What else is going on within this data? Why is it happening? and does war always lead to higher interest rates? That was something that was on my mind, so I wanted to get into that. It's obviously bad for everyone. It's bad for the U.S. government because they have to refinance debt and pay interest, and that puts stress on all the other things that the government wants to do with money from health care, pensions, even funding the military.

Like if they're paying interest, they're not paying for other stuff. That's not good. Bad for the prospects of the American homebuyer interest rates are now above 7%. getting very unaffordable for lots of people. And also a lot of mortgages are rolling over. So the era of like the 3% mortgage, less and less people still have those because people are either moving on to floating rate mortgages

or moving out of interest-locked periods. There's a whole bunch of dynamics there. And it's even bad for AI companies. So everyone hates this because the AI companies, of course, even though they have an ungodly amount of money, they need to raise more money to finance bailout and finance data centers and finance expansion. And so not good for anyone.

How do you get out of it? Maybe end the war, but there are other things at work. This war is unique. I mean, it's not that war causes interest rates to go up. It's war causes energy shortages, which causes inflation, and inflation bleeds into everything. So pain at the pump turns into, I need a raise for this, I need to raise prices on food, I need to raise prices on all sorts of things. Energy is, of course, a key input into everything. why I am so against pacing the energy rollout.

Every year, for the past like 10 years, the, I forget what is, the I-E-A or something, there's a body that forecasts energy build-out, specifically in solar, and they've gotten it wrong every year for 10 years. They've underestimated the growth of solar. You've seen this chart, right? The International Energy Agency.

Is that it? Yeah. I-E-A. Yeah. So every year they'll be like, okay, we had a great year last, year, we're going parabolic. We're up into the right. But clearly, we're not going to build more solar. People are going to get sick of this stuff. And then the next year, we build even more solar than we predicted. And so you can look at this chart of the predictions and then how we blow them out.

So that is something that we want to clearly keep working on because it will bring down inflation, bring down costs of basically everything. It will be very deflationary. And it'll allow us to do all sorts of new things. But this war is specifically driving energy prices. because, of course, oil transported through the Strait of Removes is a key pressure point for control of the conflict, and that drives up inflation, which hurts the value of treasury bonds, causing yields to spike. And so that's why they're above 5%. It's the first time, I believe, since 2007, that they've been this high. So not good.

It doesn't always go this way, though. I wanted to understand, does war or war, even just war in the Middle East, does that always cause interest rates to spike? It makes sense. It's an expensive thing. It's a capital suck. It's depressing in many, many ways. There's a whole bunch of economic reasons why you could think that war would cause interest rates to spike, but does that always happen? So during Gulf War I didn't realize this, but we have a son of a veteran on our team.

So thank you for his service. But during Gulf War I, there was a textbook oil shock. So Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd of 1990. The U.S. military buildup began basically immediately, and the Desert Storm offensive started January 7th. 1991. So about six months between the initial conflict over there, the U.S. gets involved. What happens when the U.S. gets involved? Interest rates spiked, and interest rates were already 8.29%. Already pretty high, but they spiked to over 9%. 9.05% and less than a month because everyone's like, oh, well, there's going to be less oil. Kuwait generates a lot of oil. Oil is going to be

knocked offline. That's going to flow through the economy the same way. Energy prices, inflation, etc., the usual playbook. But six months later, they were lower than the start of the war, sitting at 8.03%. There were some other things going on in the economy, obviously, but basically, like that war did not last so long. It had a much more tight ending, and so there was less pressure on interest rates. The Afghanistan war played out in reverse. So immediately before the invasion, the 10-year was at 4.52%. Yields fell to 4.4%. point two percent, you could imagine that there's some sort of like optimism around like, oh, this will be a quick operation. This won't be a quagmire. Of course, the opposite happened. So six months into the war,

the 10-year hit 5.25% up significantly, up basically three-quarters of a percent since the start of the offensive. The end result of that is that now Warsh, the new Fed Chairman, is in a tough spot. The markets expect a rate hike to bring inflation down. So the August consumer price inflation, was at 3.4%. The Fed actually prefers a different inflation measure called the PCE price index. That was at 3.7%. And so even by the Fed's preferred measure, inflation is running too hot. Again, they're targeting something like 2%. And they're up at 3.7%. And then also you get into this like, oh, well, like maybe it's just, maybe the inflation's just related to food and energy, because energy goes into food, you're trucking all the food around. Let's look at the broader economy.

So there is a separate price index for inflation excluding food and energy, and even that's a 3.3%. So that's too high. So there's really very, it's very, very tough to make a case for holding rates steady, even lowering rates, which is, of course, what lots of people want to see happen. It's very, very difficult. And the inflation is spilling over from energy into other parts of the economy. And it's basically just complicating the Fed's case for aggressive easing. So everyone's expecting a rate height. at this point. What's the effect of AI on all of this? I think that AI is such a big driver of the

economy, and yet it's having such small impacts in many ways. Like the total AI revenues are something like a quarter percent of GDP still. But in terms of headlines, it's like 75 percent of what we talk about. And so, yeah, I guess you could see a couple orders of magnitude. You get to 25 percent of the economy? I don't know. But today, The problem that's happening with rates specifically is that AI creates investment demand before any productivity benefits arrive. And so we see this with like a trillion dollars of CAPEX for like a couple hundred billion dollars of actual revenues. And so data centers require financing, construction capacity, equipment, electricity. That spending happens today, but broader productivity benefits take longer to diffuse.

So economists, specifically a group of economists that have studied this, they describe AI as a source of upward. pressure on real rates and potentially prices during the compute buildout. And Dylan Patel, Dorcasch have talked about this a little bit where, you know, compute because there's high ROI, it tends to suck demand out of the investment community. Like you look at what Jensen's doing, securitizing GPUs. You look at the incredible demand for investment grade being attached to data center buildouts with NVIDIA lending IG status to different companies. for buildouts and backstopping different data centers. That just means that if NVIDIA is there backstopping,

it means that certain funds that can only invest in investment-grade assets can now make that investment. You don't need to go to a venture capitalist for it. You can go to a mutual fund or you can go to eventually like an insurance fund where there's a lot of capital. What do you think? Do you think Jensen should backstop the Fed? Potentially he might be the lender of last resort.

I was thinking you were going to do federal backstop for podcasting. A lot of podcasters are spending a lot of money building sets, trying to get big guests. Everyone knows my stance on that already. Yeah. So there's also this interesting indirect effect, which is that specifically on inflation,

specifically on rates, during an AI boom, the stock market goes up. Lots of people have money invested in the stock market. Even a small slice of sandisk moons, you have more money. to go and spend money traveling, spending money in the real economy. And so you have this wealth effect that supports consumer spending purely on the, you know, stock market gains, the equity gains that are related to the AI boom. Obviously, everyone talks about like the San Francisco housing market liquidity from like lab employees,

but that's actually happening on a much broader scale from just people across the United States that have gone long any AI basket or even any basket that. include some tech stocks and they're like, oh, wow, I'm up 30% right now. I should upgrade my car, or I should buy that new washing machine. I should do anything that supports demand, so you see more demand, that drives inflation, and that winds up driving real rates. But what happens in the future? Now, Apollo has an interesting view of what might happen with long-term rates, given the various outcomes. They describe it as sort of a fork in the road. Either AI succeeds or AI fails. Don't like that they're talking about AI failing. I don't like that at all.

They're going with that. But, of course, those are the two possible outcomes here. And they say that in both of those scenarios, whether AI succeeds or AI fails, rates will fall, which is maybe good because everyone wants lower rates. Everyone wants to be able to afford a mortgage or afford a house. But how does this work mechanically? Because it's very weird to think that you would have a scenario where there is a massive bust in the AI economy and yet you get lower rates.

but then also if AI succeeds, you get lower rates, but they explain it this way. They say, in the next six months, if AI succeeds, you'll see productivity gains, trillions in revenue, and there will be a deflationary impulse. So as AI diffuses, things will get cheaper because there will be competition in all of these markets. It's very, very good that we're not set up in a world where there are monopolies in every category. Because if there was only one law firm, there's only one law firm, and they got AI, and they were able to cut their cost by 50%, you're still going to be paying $2,000 an hour.

You saw Morgan and Morgan is setting up their own data center? No, wait, really? I think they're going to spend about a billion dollars over the next 10 years. Wow, they're going vertical, going vertically integrated. If you're an AI researcher and you've ever wanted to work for a personal injury law firm, check out Morgan and Morgan.

They have all those billboards. Yeah. Just call the number on the billboards. Yes, I'd like to start racking GPUs for you. But, I mean, so he's paying for that in cash? Because doesn't he famously have a billion dollars in cash? Yeah, yeah. He says you're not a billionaire unless it's just sitting in a checking account.

It's got to be in the checking account, apparently. But you can imagine so many scenarios where, yes, Morgan and Morgan is saving money using AI. They're getting more efficiency. But their competitor is also saving money using AI. And they get into a little bit of a price war. Maybe margins don't compress fully, but they stay sort of healthy, and the end result is deflation, cheaper services, cheaper goods. Not for everything, but for the things that are most impacted by AI productivity gains. Then in the other scenario, the Dumer scenario from Apollo, if AI fails, the bubble bursts, there's an equity sell-off and there's a flight to Treasury, so everyone's buying treasuries saying, I've got to get out of these crazy AI stocks.

The stuff hit a wall. It's not going to be useful. I got to buy treasuries. If you buy a lot of treasuries, yields fall and interest rates fall, of course. So interesting dynamic. There is the third kind of crazy scenario, which is outlined by Dylan Patel from semi-analysis, which is like, it never stops. Like, we're going to keep investing and the data centers and the AI boom is going to continue to suck at capital until there's like none left.

And like it will all, and there will be like a sob. debt crisis, which is the craziest outcome, non-zero, but, you know, this Apollo thing, they're certainly looking for what happens in the next six months, and we'll know. We'll check in in six months with this Apollo prediction. Hopefully the war will be over by then. Hopefully the war will be over. That would be the easiest thing to, like, resolve, I think. Yeah.

Potentially easier than product. Sovereign debt. Yeah, sovereign. Driver of world peace. Yeah. Maybe, maybe. So, yeah, I don't know. I've been excited about the potential for deflationary effects playing out.

You know, I went to the hospital and I was just seeing the diffusion of technology. All the doctors are using text to speech. They talk into these little microphones when they're taking notes. Obviously, that's a technology from... We get it, John. You worked out so hard that you ended up in the hospital. Yes, that's true. We know.

But I'm fortunately doing much better. But while I was there, I was noticing like, okay, it's actually a better experience. I'm getting text messages to let me know where I am in the queue. I don't exactly have to ask, like, when am I coming up? When will I be getting out of here? But I do have to e-sign a bunch of forms and the forms don't render properly on iOS, on Safari. Like, this is something that should be fixable by an AI agent, but it hasn't been yet. Why is that?

It's the diffusion question. And it's the fact that somebody hasn't gotten in there and actually pitch them on a transformation process just yet. But it is coming. And so all of that means more time for the doctors to actually spend time with patients, doing the important work, and spending less time on the papers and the filing and the signatures. And we're not long for just, okay, as these questionnaires come in and I need to sign all these documents, just sign them for me, handle it over iMessage. All the modern AI agents are within a hair's breadth of actually realizing that future. So some cause for optimism amid, you know, sort of disappointing

interest rate news. Anyway, the people, they will get a vote on AI safety. The Wall Street Journal has an opinion piece here about the role democracy will play in the AI discussion that we've been having in the last couple weeks. So the technology risks came to focus last week, is the political system prepared? Says William Galston in the Wall Street Journal. Experts have long worried about economic, social, and security impact of artificial intelligence. This year, those risks have moved onto the public agenda.

As job growth slowed, worry spread that AI would displace entry-level workers. Next, local concerns proliferated about the effects of AI data centers on water, electricity, the environment, and noise. Then, in a widely reported incident, an open AI test went awry. A swarm of AI agents bypassed internal limits, created their own message board and cooperated to hack another AI firm. As a recent journal article made clear, this wasn't the only such event. Last week, mounting fears within the largest AI firms at the frontier of AI development burst into public view. On Tuesday, Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic with a warning viewed by millions that AI will soon be able to hack any system and most. mobilize real power and resources for malign purposes. On Thursday, Anthropic released a 154-page report on the misuse of Claude with an especially chilling chapter on possible biological weapons research. There was another chilling chapter on what's going on in the Middle East.

It's the meme both sides are using Claude to fight each other. Really, really crazy stuff. I think this was mostly through like routers and third parties and all sorts of stuff, but it's clearly a hairy mess to fight diffusion attacks. or distillation attacks, but also just all sorts of nefarious use. It's a true game of whackamol, and so full employment for alignment researchers at the labs. On Saturday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amade published an essay urging the industry to, quote, slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models to give risk mitigation strategies a chance to catch up.

He proposed a three-step plan to accelerate this process. We talked about that yesterday. The third point will surprise you. First, each company at the frontier development will give employee-like access to independent evaluators. Second, U.S. companies should promote the cooperation among democracies to mitigate risks while preserving their technological edge over China. Third, the U.S. should attempt to negotiate limits on AI risks with China analogous to nuclear arms control treaties of the Cold War era. Now, there was an interesting post that hit the timeline. Was that actually from a deep-seek employee?

Do we know that? But a deep-seek employee basically was like, I don't like Dario? He compared giving Dario AGI to like giving Hitler the bomb. It was a very, very hardcore message from a deep seek employee. But of course it's like translated through seven layers of, of abstractions. Yeah, I had no idea if that was real. Yeah, it could just be some sci-op. But did you look into it at all, Tyler?

Do you know? Yeah, I have no idea if it was really there. Yeah. I mean, it seemed like reasonably reputable people I follow. Okay. We're talking about it. Yeah. Yeah.

It's really, really hard to get a feel on the vibe in child. It's like, I think the compute gap is 10x. America has 10 times the compute of China. So you would imagine that if both countries get to AGI and it or ASI and it's aligned with the country, then even if China attacks with the super cyber weapon, our AGI can defend better because we have 10 times the compute. I think that's sort of how it would work out. but it is difficult. And then there is this weird scenario where it's like,

if you have an aligned superintelligence and your enemy has a misaligned super intelligence, they get turned into paperclips, but the paper clipper can't come over into your territory because you have the paperclip defender, which is turning paperclips into useful stuff, like cars and medicines. Podcast microphones? I don't know.

It's all very, very sci-fi. I mean, one of the, one of the, one of the, wildest moments of the last 24 hours. Yeah. Since we wrapped the show was the Department of War, just saying effective, altruous, and shambles. That's a very online phrase. After the president said,

I am the hoax buster, and right now I'm breaking another host, that AI is going to take over, consume, and destroy the world, and that robots will be marching into our cities and getting rid of us all. This is even wilder than the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, or the global warming scam.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Never expected to see the Department of War going to war with the EAs on the timeline. But here we are. Here we are. Extremely, extremely online, just time. Also, administration. AI developers face a collective action problem that only an agreement to coordinate activities can overcome. There were some news around this where Open AI believes that they don't need a waiver to coordinate on safety policy.

with other companies. And I was trying to research how seatbelts got put in cars. Because it's sort of analogous. It's like the seatbelt clearly is a safety feature in a car. And if one company does it, it's a cost. Maybe it's a benefit. Maybe it sells more cars because people want that. But it'd be really great if all the cars had seatbelts.

And then the health care system and the hospital systems want, want people wearing seatbelts so they don't have to deal with as many broken bones from car accidents, right? So I think Volvo. John Morgan would like a word. Yeah, probably. He's not spending a billion dollars on AI so that people stop getting into car accidents. Yeah. So Volvo put seatbelts in their cars first as an option.

It wasn't selling that well. There was some lobbying to get seatbelts in cars. A lot of automakers actually fought it, and we're like, no, we don't want to do this. And a lot of consumers were like, we don't want this. We don't want to have to wear these. No way. Oh, yeah. And yesterday we heard Mitchell talking about, like, it's outrageous that you can't get a four-point harness in a car.

Street car. In Europe, you can. You can. It's like he wants more. It's like, I want to be able to get a roll cage. No, but it's so wild that you had millions of people driving cars and car accidents happen. And yet people were still saying, no, I don't want, I don't want more safety. I don't want to have to put this thing over my lap.

I don't want to do that every time. I got to put it over every time. Do you remember the era of automatic seatbelts? Did you ever see cars that had those? This was like a late 80s, early 90s phenomenon. But if you got into like a Saturn or something, you know, you would step into the car and then it had a part of the seatbelt was on a mechanical train. track that would, the seatbelt would be pushed forward, you would step in, and then the seatbelt,

once you close the door and sat down, it would go and move into place so that you didn't have to buckle it like that. Ferraris will hand you the seatbelt. With the little push out thing? So you don't have to reach back too far. That's such a half measure. Either put it on me entirely or don't, I guess. So what does the Walls Retirel have to say about this? AI developers face a collective action problem that only an agreement to coordinate activities can overcome. The question is whether voluntary agreements can work without government involvement. The U.S. government must assure AI companies that voluntary coordination wouldn't run afoul of antitrust laws and regulations. Mr. Amade argues for an additional step, sensible and targeted AI regulation

that focuses on corporate transparency and independent third-party evaluation, which can't succeed without evaluators embedded within firms and enjoying unfettered access to all. all relevant information. In a better world, support for assuring AI safety would be bipartisan. Instead, how Speaker Mike Johnson had made clear his reluctance to proceed while President Trump has denounced what he terms a sick conspiracy going on against AI and data centers. Underlying this resistance is a legitimate concern, the U.S. is in an AI race with China

that it can't afford to lose. All private sector AI leaders share that concern, Mr. Amadei, said he agrees with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. that, quote, a Chinese lead in AI would pose a grave danger for the United States and the world, and he wants to keep democracy's AI lead over autocracies as large as possible. He opposes the sale of powerful AI chips

and semiconductor equipment to China and support security measures in AI companies to prevent Chinese theft of key data. The question is whether we can diminish the risks of unchecked AI development without endangering our lead over China in a technology that is vital to economic growth and military prowess. The tech industry believes it can.

The Trump administration says we can't. There's a new time cover. With that. It has clawed on the front with the question, how dangerous are you? Are you? Interesting. And, yeah, so full, full, full, full push on this narrative. Yep.

One of the most brilliant. You're talking about the narrative to not give Jensen credit in Time Magazine for being influential in AI? Oh, well, that's a whole other story. Because that was last month's time cover was a hundred of the most influential voices in AI. Jensen didn't make the cut. But no. No, no, but I was talking about the campaign around this moment, AI safety. It is really coming from every possible angle.

You know, you have everything from Time magazine to Joe Rogan to Tucker Carlson, to every major publication, to Kamala Harris, to Burris, to Burrass. Barack Obama to Bill Gates. It is really, really, really coming from every angle. Ends up in time today. Two of the reporters on the byline for this cover are funded by the Tarbell Center and AI Dumer org. He says controlled by Dustin Moskowitz. Tarbell gives journalists large grants and these are Jordan's words to insert AI

Dumer stories into prominent outlets. Time did not disclose the affiliation. So there's a lot bubbling up on the Tarbell Center recently. They've been very public about what they're doing for years now. Yeah. They give cash to journalists. And these journalists are, you know, at Time Magazine, MIT, Bloomberg, The Guardian. A bunch of your favorite substacks have taken money from Dustin's organization.

and yeah, I expect to see a lot more coverage on Tarbell over, and it's funny. It's like, who's going to cover them because they've given money to people in pretty much every prominent newsroom. And so it's kind of an awkward thing to try to cover if you're like an editor and someone says, hey, I want to cover this story. And then they're like, wait, they gave money to this person in our newsroom. So I don't know who. Maybe you don't like the person that's sitting across from me on the news desk. You're like, oh, I see the bus down. They got on their wrist.

No, but it's really, it's the Verge NPR, the information, the Seattle Times, South China Morning Post, TechCrunch, The Guardian, Scientific American, CBS News. Now, the L.A. Time. The steel man is that these grants don't come with strings attached, that they're not coming with talking about. It's a free lunch. It's actually, they say free lunches don't exist. but there are exceptions. Yeah. In this case, your steel man is that the Tarbell Center gives a free lunch.

To see, CNBC, Fortune, Time, USA's Day, newcomer. I know, but they say our partner newsrooms on the website. Interesting. San Francisco Standard, China Talk. Yeah. Platformer, Bloomberg. Is it a trajectory on there? No. Oh, okay.

Go subscribe to Stratory. No, but it's basically every, pretty much every newsroom. Okay. NBC. The O'Von? Not yet. Okay. It's the final holdout.

Call her daddy? What about spitting chicklets? Bustin with the boys? Is Bustin with the boys on there? What about the new jackass movie? Do they take Tarbell money? Probably. Okay.

Well, we'll have to get to the bottom. Now, who knows? Crazy, really, I think, one of the most fascinating. stories, merging stories. I'm interested to see how these groups cover it. What's going on over at Ramp? A new update from the Ramp AI Index. Economics Lab. RAS says Open AIS winning enterprise spend at the frontier.

As of this week, Astra takes 13% of enterprise AI spend versus Fable at 8%. Some early thoughts. Anthropic took a big risk in its recent call to pace of frontier. Its frontier model has already fallen behind on adoption. Open AIs growth is primarily coming from shifts. from shifts from Seoul and some Anthropic models as well as net new usage. That's good for them and suggest some pricing power remains by having a good competitive frontier model. So, yeah, Astros, you know, in many ways seemingly a bit more cost efficient.

And so that's probably a factor, but also the data retention stuff that Anthropic is working towards fixing by the fall. Yeah, the data retention thing, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, that's probably a bigger thing for enterprise AI. I would, by default, I would go with, like, Astra had a very buzzy launch around like blender and video game creation. But that's not moving stuff in the enterprise. Although maybe with the long weekend, you do get a CTO and an enterprise building a video game and then come into work and being like, we got to roll this out everywhere. I don't really know how much these things diffuse that way. But that launch weekend into the long Labor Day weekend certainly gave a lot of people time to demo it.

on personal projects and bring it into the workplace with confidence. So good, good result. John Ternus, the Terninator. Was it? Sounds like Terminator. I know. Was that the Emmys last night? Didn't Tim Cook do this exact bit like two years ago?

Yeah, but did the phone fold? No, it didn't. And the funny thing is that I think Tim Cook did this exact thing last year at the Emmys where he pulled out the iPhone 17 pro and they asked him like, What's your favorite iPhone? And he was like, it's this one. And he did the, it's the thinest, lightest, bestest ever. And everyone was kind of like, this is not good content.

But this is, it hits completely different because there is actually something novel about it. Yeah. I don't know. It's better. And he's smiling. He's all smiles at the, at the Emmys. Very good. Max, uh, from, uh, creative strategies says he seems so happy and proud showing off the iPhone duo.

It's kind of nice and sweet to see. People were, people were, I like to make hardware. Yeah, yeah, this has been in his life's work. This is bullish. This is bullish. People were speculating that Jensen was talking to Donald Trump at the All In Summit on an iPhone duo. But the Germanator checked in and said it doesn't look like an iPhone duo. It looks like a different foldable phone from a different company, not an iPhone duo.

They're barely in the wild, just people getting a peek. leave us five cars and Apple Podcasts. I am... I'm so glad that we had the CMO of Activision or Cod come on the show and not tell us, hey, you guys got to cut off the... Oh, yeah. Infringe all you.