All-In Podcast, Episode: "OpenAI's Code Red, Sacks vs New York Times, New Poverty Line?"

Date: December 6, 2025
Hosts: Jason Calacanis (A), Chamath Palihapitiya (B), David Friedberg (C), David Sacks (D)

Overview

This episode dives into three major topics:

1. The hyper-competitive AI landscape—focusing on OpenAI’s internal "Code Red" mobilization amidst surging competition.
2. A deep-dive into The New York Times’ exposé on David Sacks’ government role, with a candid, detailed defense from Sacks and robust group discussion on public service, journalism, and conflicts of interest.
3. A viral debate on the U.S. poverty line, cost-of-living pressures, and the unintended consequences of government programs and taxation—leading into a lively conversation on America’s direction.

The foursome provide real industry data, personal anecdotes, policy insight, and their trademark banter and debate throughout.

1. OpenAI's "Code Red": AI Industry Battle Royale

Context (00:00–21:19)

• Jason: Sam Altman at OpenAI has issued a "code red" to staff—focusing all efforts on the core ChatGPT product due to fierce competition from Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini, and xAI's Grok. OpenAI's enterprise market share is declining, and trust is eroding among startups regarding OpenAI’s use of their data.

Key Themes and Insights

• Market Is Wide Open (01:46–04:16, Chamath)

  • “It’s too difficult and too early to pick winners, other than at the silicon layer, where largely that die has been cast: Nvidia, AMD, Google and some inference silicon.” (01:53, B)
  • Reminiscent of the Facebook vs. MySpace days—lots of convergence, but distribution and focus still matter.
  • Code Red serves to refocus distracting growth and entropy typical to rapidly scaling tech companies.

• Management Technique: The "Code Red" Playbook (04:44–06:21, Friedberg)

  • Code Red, like Google’s old "Project Canada" vs. Microsoft, is a powerful way to create urgency and innovation.
  • “Having an impending threat is a very strong motivational tactic. It drives innovation.” (05:24, C)

• Competitive Landscape—Specialization and Goldilocks Market (06:40–09:56, Sacks)

  • ChatGPT: Consumer leader; losing ground due to rivals.
  • Gemini: Leverages search integration, recent leaps in quality.
  • Anthropic: Enterprise leader, notably in coding tools.
  • xAI’s Grok: Strength in current events thanks to X (Twitter) integration and rapid scaling (Colossus clusters).
  • “All these companies are leapfrogging each other…the market is competitive. Ideally, it doesn’t consolidate into a monopoly. That’s not great for consumers or citizens.” (09:24, D)

• China vs. US: Systemic Strength (09:56–10:31, Sacks)

  • Competition is America’s engine for progress and its advantage in the global AI race.

• OpenAI's Declining Share; Forecasts (10:31–16:29)

  • OpenAI’s market share falling rapidly (“This is accelerating”; 84% last year, now 68%).
  • All-in hosts predict the market will likely split (OpenAI: ~1/3, others ~2/3).
  • "This is war—the greatest battle we've seen since Netscape vs. Microsoft and the Internet.” (15:27, A)
  • Google and Meta will use their cash reserves and ad networks to make top models free, “sucking the oxygen out of the room,” putting OpenAI’s paid subscription model at risk.
  • “If you want to make Gemini even more incredible, just pour another billion users into it. And if that costs you $50 billion, it’s okay because you’ll make a trillion of market cap. It’s like a no brainer.” (17:34, B)

• The Next AI Frontiers (19:20–21:19, Friedberg)

  • The “battle” won’t just be about LLMs—video, multimodal AI, and non-text models are areas of greater differentiation and future opportunity.
  • “We’re going to look back at [chat interfaces] like everyone on AOL Instant Messenger. That’s not really where the game’s going to be played.” (21:02, C)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “The amount of bad will that Sam [Altman] has built is colossal...I think we’re at peak OpenAI right now...it’s ChatGPT vs. the world, and I think the world wins two-thirds.” (13:46, A)
• “These companies are explicitly trying to kill OpenAI.” (12:35, A)

Timestamps of Segments

• Competitive landscape breakdown: 06:40–09:56
• Predictions for AI market: 10:31–16:29
• Underlying industrial/financial strategy: 16:29–18:29
• Future of AI beyond LLMs: 19:20–21:19

2. The New York Times vs. David Sacks: Conflicts, Service, and Media Narratives

Context (29:48–51:03)

• Jason: The New York Times published a feature accusing Sacks of using his government role (“Silicon Valley’s Man in the White House”) for personal and business gain.

Key Points

• Industry Pushback and Media Skepticism (29:48–32:28, Sacks)

  • Massive outpouring of Silicon Valley support for Sacks, including from tech figures otherwise in competition: “I think this might be the only thing that Sam and Elon have agreed on in the last year.” (30:25, D)
  • The story is viewed as a hit piece, failing to substantiate its claims even in the headline.

• Sacks Details His Ethics and Sacrifices (33:29–37:27)

  • Sacks' government service required him to divest, at steep discounts, hundreds of millions of dollars in tech ventures, including fund LP interests and shares in AI companies like xAI/Grok.
  • Sacks and co-hosts characterize this as not just meeting ethical requirements, but going "above and beyond."
  • "Not only is this job not benefiting me, it’s actually cost me a lot of money to serve. ... The whole premise here is just false." (34:07, D)

• Media Tactics and Fact-Checking (47:55–49:29)

  • NYT reporters’ “fact checks” included anecdotal claims (e.g., a dinner with Jensen Huang that did not occur); they disregarded corrections from Sacks’ side.
  • “They’ve got a source who’s just making this up... If your source has already been caught fabricating a dinner... it’s totally discredited.” (49:10, D)

• Bigger Issue: Journalism Discouraging Expertise in Government (38:46–42:33, Chamath)

  • “What this article does is try to intimidate those kinds of people [with real-world expertise] to say...this is just too much of a headache.” (40:48, B)
  • The article’s purpose isn’t to uncover wrongdoing, but to deter capable private-sector experts from public service, leaving governance to “inexperienced morons.”

• Jeffersonian Vision vs. Reality (42:53–45:09, Friedberg)

  • Friedberg invokes Thomas Jefferson on rotation in office and civil service as a duty, not a grift.
  • “Those who are trying to build a career in politics are the ones who are necessarily going to self deal. If you’ve already found your path to wealth, you don’t need to self deal.” (50:14, C)

Notable Quotes

• “Do you want lawyers and academics with no experience in the real world setting policy in Washington, DC? Or do you want to have experts?” (41:17, A)
• “It’s hard for people to grok that somebody is losing a massive amount of money serving their country.” (50:36, A)
• “We want people in the prime of their careers to go in there... kick ass for us for four or eight years and then come back.” (41:26, A)

Timestamps

• Initial set-up & response: 29:48–32:28
• Sacks' ethics, divestments, and fact-check anecdotes: 33:29–37:27; 47:55–49:29
• Broader implications for expertise in government and democracy: 38:46–45:09
• Personal/testimonial defense of Sacks: 50:14–51:03

3. Viral "New Poverty Line" Debate, Cost of Living, and Taxation Spirals

Context (52:16–72:07)

• Jason: Discusses Mike Green’s viral argument that the true U.S. poverty line should be ~$140,000 for a family of four, not $31,000—largely due to housing and especially childcare costs.

Key Themes and Analysis

• Breakdown of the Claim (52:16–55:03, Chamath)

  • Green used high-cost-of-living suburb data, not national averages. MIT’s Living Wage tool suggests a more realistic figure (~$93k in Lynchburg, VA).
  • Chamath notes the main cost drivers: housing & childcare; corroborates that climbing income ladders can, due to lost government benefits, sometimes stall progress, but the effect is not as broad as the viral claim suggests.

• "Welfare Cliff" and Government Program Unintended Consequences (55:03–58:13, B & C)

  • Programs intended as support become “anchors” or “shackles”—sometimes disincentivizing income growth, especially in certain bands.
  • “One of the challenges America faces is government programs create an anchor. They are a shackle. They hold people back when they're supposed to be support payments.” (58:13, C)

• Government Spending, Deficits, and the Taxation Spiral (58:13–67:50, C & B)

  • Discussion on tax hikes in high-cost states (CA, OR, WA), corporate/wealth flight, and failed wealth tax experiments (e.g. Norway’s exodus following a wealth tax).
  • The “democratic spiral”: rising social spending → higher taxes → erosion of economic activity and tax base → more spending and tax.

• Potential Political Implications (64:21–70:22)

  • Predictions of more explicit Democratic socialist policies; emphasis on solving housing, healthcare, and education as the most constructive, rather than punitive, approach.
  • “If you're going to be president, you gotta solve housing... get people out of the way and build housing stock. ...number two, give some people some basic health care... number three, fix education.” (69:22, A)

• AI/Technological Optimism (71:39–72:07, Friedberg)

  • Friedberg: The real hope for lifting everyone is in “leverage in everyone’s hands” via AI, energy abundance, and improved healthspan.

Notable Quotes

• “The root cause of it is government spending.” (67:58, B)
• “Those of us who are on this zoom and our cohort of friends are the ones who have mostly benefited from America, quote, winning; the rest of America has been left behind.” (68:44, C)
• “If we solve tuition... and the loans matched the outcomes, we would not have [these grievances]...the referendum in 2028 is those three issues.” (69:22, A)

Timestamps

• Poverty line debate and “welfare cliff”: 52:16–58:13
• Taxation, wealth flight, and cycles of socialism: 58:13–67:50
• Policy prescription and optimism: 69:22–72:07

Memorable Banter & Closing Remarks

• Jokes about Jason running for president with fellow hosts as cabinet: “When I run for president, I’m going to start 10 new cities... universal healthcare... trade schools free...” (70:33, A)
• The recurring “besties” banter, inside jokes about Ohalo hats, and playful jabs in the outro, sustaining the show’s informal and irreverent tone.

Final Thoughts

This episode is a masterclass in nuanced, informed group podcasting, blending technical market insight, real-world experience, and unfiltered opinion. The hosts present a mosaic of how modern industry, media, and government collide—always with energy, candor, and humor, rarely seen in mainstream formats.

Highlighted Quotes (with Timestamps)

• “Having an impending threat is a very strong motivational tactic. It drives innovation.” — Friedberg (05:24)
• “Distribution still matters. A ton. Which favors Google, favors Meta... and will still favor OpenAI because they have 800 million monthly actives.” — Chamath (02:53)
• “If you want to make Gemini even more incredible, just pour another billion users into it. And if that costs you $50 billion, it’s okay because you’ll make a trillion of market cap.” — Chamath (17:34)
• “The whole premise here is just false. ... Not only is this job not benefiting me, it's actually cost me a lot of money to serve.” — Sacks on NYT's claims (34:07)
• “Do you want lawyers and academics with no experience in the real world setting policy in Washington, DC? Or do you want to have experts?” — Jason (41:17)
• “One of the challenges America faces is government programs create an anchor. They are a shackle.” — Friedberg (58:13)
• “Those of us on this zoom and our cohort... have mostly benefited from America, quote, winning. The rest of America has been left behind.” — Friedberg (68:44)

For newcomers and longtime listeners alike, this episode is an essential listen for cutting through headlines to understand the forces shaping tech, policy, and society today.