Trump AI Speech & Action Plan, DC Summit Recap, Hot GDP Print, Trade Deals, Altman Warns No Privacy

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump AI Speech & Action Plan, DC Summit Recap, Hot GDP Print, Trade Deals, Altman Warns No Privacy"
Released on August 1, 2025
All-In Podcast with Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg

---

1. Introduction and Casual Banter (00:00 - 01:14)

The episode opens with the hosts engaging in light-hearted, humorous exchanges about a product called "Alp," which quickly segues into discussions about personal habits and a playful atmosphere. This segment sets a relaxed tone before delving into more substantial topics.

Notable Quote:

• Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14): "You don't need anything right now."

---

2. DC Summit Recap and Behind-the-Scenes Insights (01:14 - 08:44)

The hosts transition to discussing their recent experience at the DC Summit, organized by David Friedberg in just ten days. They highlight the impressive lineup of speakers, including industry leaders from AMD and other tech giants. David Sacks shares his involvement with President Trump in signing executive orders related to AI, emphasizing the administration's proactive stance on technological advancements.

Notable Quotes:

• David Friedberg (02:30): "Are you being paid for this plug right now?"
• Chamath Palihapitiya (03:53): "What a week. What a rush. It was awesome."

---

3. President Trump's AI Speech and Policy Initiatives (08:44 - 21:07)

The core discussion centers around President Trump's comprehensive AI policy speech, likened to Kennedy's Space Race declaration. Jason Calacanis provides an in-depth analysis of the speech, outlining Trump's emphasis on winning the global AI race through innovation, infrastructure investment, and setting AI exports as a global standard. The policy also includes executive orders aimed at ensuring AI models used by the federal government remain free of ideological biases, effectively banning "woke AI."

Notable Quotes:

• Jason Calacanis (09:10): "President Trump declared that the United States was in an AI race. It's going to reshape the global economy."
• David Sacks (20:08): "The Biden administration required DEI to be inserted into all these models."

---

4. Trade Deals and Economic Impact (66:58 - 75:45)

The conversation shifts to recent trade deals, particularly a significant agreement with the European Union. Jason Calacanis highlights the benefits of the deal, including the elimination of tariffs on U.S. products entering the EU and substantial investments flowing into the U.S. from Europe. This deal is portrayed as a major victory for the Trump administration, countering earlier skepticism about renegotiating trade terms.

Notable Quotes:

• Jason Calacanis (66:55): "This is a huge win for the Trump administration."
• David Sacks (75:19): "President Trump has extracted trillions of dollars from other countries using powers that other presidents didn't even know they had."

---

5. GDP Growth and Federal Reserve Policies (63:07 - 78:14)

David Sacks and Jason Calacanis discuss the latest GDP reports, noting a robust 3% growth in Q2 following an initial decline. They critique the Federal Reserve's decision to hold interest rates steady despite inflation concerns, suggesting that the administration's trade strategies have bolstered economic performance. Chamath Palihapitiya adds insights on specific GDP categories affected by tariffs, such as furnishings and recreational goods.

Notable Quotes:

• Jason Calacanis (63:08): "That's the most pointless chart ever."
• Chamath Palihapitiya (77:15): "If they have thin margins, their margin goes down; if they have big margins, they'll absorb it."

---

6. AI Privacy and Copyright Issues (56:37 - 48:17)

The hosts engage in a heated debate about AI privacy concerns raised by Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. They discuss the lack of legal confidentiality when using AI models like ChatGPT, comparing it to legal privileges in professions like therapy and law. The conversation delves into copyright issues, emphasizing the necessity of fair use and the potential risks of AI models infringing on intellectual property.

Notable Quotes:

• David Sacks (57:12): "AI user privacy is becoming an issue because... there's no legal confidentiality when using ChatGPT."
• Chamath Palihapitiya (36:13): "AI outputs that contain copyright material are in violation of copyright."

---

7. Future of AI and Intellectual Property (48:17 - 55:00)

David Sacks and Jason Calacanis explore the future implications of AI on intellectual property and the potential for AI to autonomously create works similar to existing copyrighted material. They discuss scenarios where AI might generate derivative works and the legal and ethical challenges that would ensue. The conversation highlights the delicate balance between technological advancement and the protection of creators' rights.

Notable Quotes:

• Jason Calacanis (51:37): "We were going to reverse that all along."
• David Sacks (54:41): "Patents are a totally different beast."

---

8. Upcoming All-In Summit and Closing Remarks (78:26 - 83:36)

The episode concludes with announcements about the upcoming All-In Summit in Los Angeles, featuring an impressive lineup of speakers from various industries, including Alibaba's co-founder, Cathie Wood of Ark Invest, and Uber's CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. The hosts express enthusiasm for future discussions and debates, reinforcing the podcast's commitment to tackling hard-hitting topics.

Notable Quotes:

• David Sacks (78:26): "This has been an amazing episode of the number one podcast in the world."
• Jason Calacanis (83:03): "We're throwing in the trash."

---

Key Takeaways

• AI Policy Under Trump: President Trump has made AI a central focus, aiming to position the U.S. as a global leader in AI through strategic policies and executive orders.

• Trade Negotiations: Significant trade deals, especially with the EU, are injecting substantial investments into the U.S. economy, enhancing its economic standing.

• Economic Performance: The U.S. is experiencing robust GDP growth despite inflation concerns, attributed to effective trade strategies and investment influx.

• AI Privacy and Copyright: There are growing concerns about AI's handling of personal data and intellectual property, necessitating new legal frameworks to protect privacy and creators' rights.

• Future Discussions: The upcoming All-In Summit promises in-depth discussions on technology, economics, and policy with a diverse group of industry leaders.

---

This episode of the All-In Podcast offers a comprehensive look into the intersection of technology, policy, and economics, featuring candid debates and expert insights from some of the industry's foremost figures.

Transcript

[Jason Calacanis]

How much founder mode did you do?

[David Sacks]

You're saying that I popped an alp? I need an alp right now. Hold on.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You don't need anything right now.

[David Friedberg]

Are you chewing it? What are you doing?

[David Sacks]

No. You put this nicotine pouch, you upper deck, it releases it, and then you become a God.

[Jason Calacanis]

Is that the Alp that Tucker sent you?

[David Sacks]

Yeah, Tucker and I are going to do a crossover.

[Jason Calacanis]

Wait, did you work out a side hustle here?

[David Sacks]

I haven't presented it to the group for a vote yet. You're pretty.

[Jason Calacanis]

Second. Are you being paid for this plug right now?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, he is.

[David Sacks]

I'm just saying if you use the promo code J. Cal.

[Jason Calacanis]

Wait a second.

[David Sacks]

Promo code J. 15.

[Jason Calacanis]

OK. He broke up, which is good.

[David Friedberg]

Is he on drugs? Is he taking drugs?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He's on drugs.

[David Sacks]

No, I'm not on drugs.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And he's doing a deal with drugs.

[Jason Calacanis]

This is like a PSA for not taking this stuff. You're so out of control.

[David Friedberg]

Did you take two of them?

[David Sacks]

What are you doing?

[Jason Calacanis]

I thought this stuff relaxes you. What the hell is going on? Your Internet's on the fritz too.

[David Sacks]

I fixed it. I fixed it. I fixed it. That was Putin. Putin's got my Internet. Putin's got.

[Jason Calacanis]

My God.

[David Friedberg]

What flavor are you eating or using?

[David Sacks]

Today's Chilled men. Today's chilled men.

[Jason Calacanis]

You don't seem very chill. You seem.

[David Sacks]

This is the first one.

[David Friedberg]

I. Agitated and angry.

[David Sacks]

No, I'm trying to get us back to that original All In Energy where we laughed and we had fun and we enjoyed each other's company.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, but jcal, seriously, do you have a side deal going on with Alp right now?

[David Sacks]

No, I don't have a deal yet. I don't know if I have a deal. There's no deal.

[David Friedberg]

I'm texting Tucker now just to cut.

[David Sacks]

You.

[Jason Calacanis]

Let your winners ride Rain Man.

[David Sacks]

Davidson.

[Jason Calacanis]

And instead we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

[David Sacks]

Love you, Queen of Quinoa. All right, everybody, welcome back to what Jensen from Nvidia has confirmed is the number one podcast in the world. Yes, the all in podcast is here. We had an amazing time in D.C. last week and we'll get into that. But hey, Freeberg, you crushed it on all those incredible speakers last week. Ten days. You had to pull off that event, Friedberg, and you did it. Chamath and I just parachuted in to DC last week for the AI summit. Sacks was busy working with POTUS to get all those executive orders done. Take us behind the scenes, Friedberg all of these incredible speakers. You got Lisa from amd, you had Lutnik. I liked him. Besant. I liked him.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We had to say no to a lot of tech company CEOs that found out about the event and wanted to speak on stage. So there was a big kind of cutoff that we had to make around making sure that we got our message across. I think if you watch the content, we talked briefly about it at the beginning, but the focus was really on trying to dispel the negative AI narrative and myth that AI is just here to destroy jobs. Because there's this big economic boom that's happening both with respect to new industries that are emerging, which is why we showcased Hadrian and others, but then also the infrastructure needed to support the AI race with data centers, chips, mining and energy. And so we highlighted each of those four industries and then the Cabinet people found out about it and wanted to get involved. So we were unfortunately squeezing people on and off stage. It's kind of crazy to tell the Secretary of Treasury he has to get off the stage because he's passed his 20 minute allocation. But we had to line everything up so that the President could get his Secret Service detail to clear the stage and get set up in time. That's why we were rushing everyone. But, man, what a week. What a rush. It was awesome. Thanks to David Sachs for the leadership and pulling it all together, bringing those folks to the table. And sacks, congrats on getting your EO signed and your action plan published. That was pretty cool. Pretty awesome to meet the President and meet all those cabinet members and have all of this day come together because of the work you've been doing.

[David Sacks]

How does it feel, Zachs? How are you doing in the afterglow there? I can see that you're in the afterglow. You sent me a picture of the four besties with our incredible 47th president. How are you feeling right now?

[Jason Calacanis]

Are you going to put that on the screen?

[David Sacks]

I mean, we have it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I don't.

[David Sacks]

I don't know if that's allowed. Were we allowed to put that on the screen? I don't know what the protocol is.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, I think we can.

[David Sacks]

Yeah. I mean, I haven't gotten my picture. I did notice that I was. Unfortunately, when they took the picture of the four of us with the President, somehow I got cropped out by accident. I think maybe they weren't using a wide lens.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Wait, Jason, what was it like for you to meet the President? Because just for the audience, we all stood in line and then we took a photo with the president backstage, and then we did a photo with the four of us. But, Jason, when you had your moment with the president, what did you say? Did you ask him about immigration? Did you.

[Jason Calacanis]

I have a photo. By the way, I have your photo with the president. Oh, it's on my phone.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Did you. Did you bring up solar panels with him? Like, what was your big moment all about?

[David Sacks]

I didn't know we were taking a picture. That was, like, sprung on me. So I was like, oh, we're taking a picture. So my brother Josh, who runs security for us, was like, they need you in the back to take a picture with the president. And I was like, yeah, I'm good. I gotta. I gotta prepare for, you know, some.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, you were gonna pass.

[David Sacks]

Well, I thought he was joking with me, so I was like, yeah, yeah, I'm good. I'm good. He's like, no, no, I'm serious. You're taking pictures with the president. I was like, we are. Okay. So I ran back and they put us in line. And then I was like, I think I'm getting punked here. Because they kept repeating to me, okay, Jason, you're last.

[Jason Calacanis]

You're last.

[David Sacks]

And they, you know, and I know you guys like to put in a joke or two. So, you know, I just got in line last, and it's obviously, you know, it's a big deal to take a picture with the president, so I didn't want to, you know, use that time inappropriately or anything. So I just said, it's a pleasure to meet you.

[David Friedberg]

Just say it already. You like it. Just say it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Just.

[David Sacks]

Let's get it over with.

[David Friedberg]

Just get it.

[David Sacks]

Get to the end.

[David Friedberg]

You like him. You tried not to. You know, you're all Mr. Big Shot, Mr. Big Talk. And then you got in front of him and you like him.

[David Sacks]

Just say it. What I will say is, Jesus Christ.

[David Friedberg]

What a joke. You're such a goon.

[David Sacks]

I had a great time. I had a great time. Predictable.

[David Friedberg]

You're a predictable goon.

[David Sacks]

You know, you don't even know what goon is. Okay, stop, Riz. Stop aura farming. You don't know what gooning is, okay, or. No, I had a great time meeting him. It was a great event or a farming. Obviously he's trying to get his Riz up to impress his kids, but it was great, and I didn't know what to do, so he did.

[David Friedberg]

We can move on.

[David Sacks]

I.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What do you think of his speech.

[Jason Calacanis]

Jason, after he gave you a shout out? Jason won't even Acknowledge after the president gave you a shout out, I don't know about love.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He said, even.

[David Friedberg]

Jason, how many times have you listened to that clip?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Over and over.

[David Friedberg]

How many times? How many times? How many people have you shared that with? How many?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Play the clip. Play the clip.

[David Sacks]

I want to also. Oh, no. Say hello and thank to Chamath and his wonderful wife Nat. Thank you very much for being here.

[Jason Calacanis]

Thank you very much.

[David Sacks]

It was great seeing you again. Great couple, David Friedberg and even, as we know, Jason Gallican. I say even. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Jason. I appreciate that. Yeah, he's a good person. I mean, he's a good person.

[Jason Calacanis]

He called you a good person.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He called you a good person.

[David Sacks]

So here we are.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What president's ever called you a good person before? Come on.

[David Sacks]

I mean, it's obviously like surreal for all of us, I think, to be this close to the administration and then for Sachs to be part of it. What I will say is you have to give a lot of credit to this administration for the velocity they're going, what they're accomplishing, even if you disagree with certain items on the margins and their ability to engage with leaders doing important work. And if we compare that to Biden and Kamala, like they weren't even letting people come to the White House. Is this like, I love this administration. I love the administration. I like Trump.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

This is a cabinet of CEOs.

[David Sacks]

Let me just say this. I'm not in love with Trump. I'm in like with Trump. That's where I'm at. I'm not in love with Trump. I'm in like with Trump.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But what better team has ever been put together? It is a cabinet of CEOs, it is a cabinet of managers. It is a cabinet of people who know how to get done. And every time I go there, I'm impressed by this cabinet. I pull my hair out when I meet myself.

[David Sacks]

So when you admit that you're pro Trump, finally, Friedberg, you've been splitting it. You've been dancing around the issue. Are you full, 100% in support of Trump? You wanna sit here and put me on the spot? I put you on the spot.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I support my president. I support the president.

[David Sacks]

Okay, so you voted for him and you love Trump. You voted for him and you love Trump.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I love what he's doing and you voted for him. And I have issues with the spending and that's not been resolved. So like I said before.

[David Sacks]

Okay, great. Here we are, folks.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

My full throated endorsement will come around when Doge actions are taken seriously and or the White House puts pressure on Congress to take action on the budget.

[David Sacks]

What is everybody's favorite moment? Favorite other than Trump, you know, being absolutely amazing. Great speech. He said he's hilarious. Whatever. We'll put POTUS outside that because it's hard to compete with the President of the United States. Sachs, did you have a couple of favorite moments? Give us a couple of favorite moments there.

[Jason Calacanis]

First of all, I think we should talk about the substance of the speech because I think this was the first speech that President Trump has given on AI since the AI boom began. He's spoken about it before, but this was a full length policy speech. And he declared that the United States was in an AI race. It's a global competition. I think the language that he used was reminiscent of how President John F. Kennedy declared that America was in a space race. And in a similar way, President Trump declared that we had to win the AI race. I think you can argue that the AI race is more important than the space race. It's going to reshape the global economy. It's going to determine who the superpowers are of the 21st century. And President Trump was really clear that we had to win it and that he was going to support a strategy for winning it. And then he laid out what some of those key pillars are. Number one was innovation. We have to get the red tape out of the way and let our geniuses cook. And clearly was very supportive to a lot of the CEOs and entrepreneurs in the crowd. Number two is infrastructure. He touted the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in energy and power generation and grid upgrades and data centers that he's supporting. And then he also supported AI exports. He said that we have to make America's tech stack the global standard. So I think those were really important messages. And then on top of that, I think there was also some parts of the speech that maybe have gotten less attention but are also important where he said that it's not only important that we win. He said it's important how we win. And he sort of mentioned three non negotiables here. Number one was that American workers have to be at the center of the prosperity that we create. Number two is that the AI models that the government procures and buys must be free of ideological bias. So no woke AI. And he also signed an executive order to prohibit woke AI in the federal government. We can talk about that in a second. That probably was my favorite moment.

[David Sacks]

That was your favorite moment?

[Jason Calacanis]

That was My favorite moment.

[David Sacks]

That was the red meat moment. I thought that was.

[Jason Calacanis]

That was the red meat. Yeah.

[David Sacks]

That was the red meat for the base. Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah. The third thing is he did say that we do want to prevent our technologies from being misused or stolen by malicious actors. And, look, we are going to monitor for emerging and unforeseen risks. So, you know, we're not going to disregard the risk. But he had this really good line in the speech about how even though AI, look, it's a daunting technology because it's so powerful, and like any revolutionary technology like that, it can be used for bad as well as good, but the daunting nature of it is all the more reason why we have to do it in the United States. Why the United States has to be the pioneer and the leader is because we don't want the power of that technology being develop in other parts of the world. At least other parts of the world are going to have it, but we want to be the ones on the cutting edge who are defining it and leading it.

[David Sacks]

Fantastic.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, so I think it was a really important speech. I think this idea of an AI race that is similar to the space race, I think is going to be the dominant frame on AI policy for years to come.

[David Sacks]

Well, it's pretty clear this presidency, this term, is going to be earmarked, I think, by four key initiatives. AI, crypto, immigration and tariffs. I think that feels like what they're locking into as what's important for the next three and a half years. I think you would agree with that, and it's just great that you're spearheading and helping the President with two of those four. And just the velocity, to me, is what's super impressive. Any way you could take us behind the scenes of how this stuff is getting done so quickly? It feels like there's some operational cadence here that we didn't see in his first term, certainly didn't see in the Biden term. But there's a. There's a cadence here that's different. Yeah. Startup speed. How is that?

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, yeah, we call it. He's working at tech speed. I just think that the President's constantly working. I mean, he's just so energetic. I mean, he basically works, like, two full work days. I think it's well known that he doesn't need a lot of sleep, and he continues to work late into the night, and I just think his energy propels everything forward. I also think that there's a very cohesive team at the White House under The Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, I think it's very important. I think she runs a tight ship and then you've got the deputy Chief of staff under her. And I think most people have been working together for a long time and it's a team that works well together and it just feels very coherent and cohesive to me. So I think it's a very effective team.

[David Sacks]

It does feel like that. The pace is great. It means you're going to get more shots on goal, you'll be able to try more things and get more accomplished, just like we see in startups. Chamath, outside of the President's talk, we'll go around the horn here. Top two or three moments from the discussions, just lightning round here, rapid fire. What do you got? Top two or three moments for you. Chamath, just in the discussions that were enlightening to you, inspiring to you, notable to you.

[David Friedberg]

I came out of it very motivated. I think that the combination of the speech, the executive orders and the clarity of the big beautiful bill now give those of us that are in these markets a ton of Runway to go and execute. And so those things reinforced by the various members of the Cabinet, I think were very important. That was one. And then the second thing were the market commentary from both Lisa sue and Jensen I thought was really valuable. And then the third was Chris Wright and Doug Burgum talking about energy. And I tweeted this yesterday, but we are sort of back to basics almost in a sense where in the absence of power, I think AI is, is not going to be the thing that we think it can be. So that's going to create an enormous amount of appetite by the federal government to do deals and get players on the field. And that's to me, very exciting. So, yeah, I came away really, really risk on, I guess is best way to say it.

[David Sacks]

I love it. Freebridge, you have two or three moments outside of the President's speech. Obviously that's the pinnacle there. So let's just go below the pinnacle. What were the other two or three moments for you that were salient, inspiring, notable?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I thought Jensen did a great job. I don't know what you guys thought, but he is very compelling and has an incredible vision and view on where AI is taking us, where it's headed and what the challenges are. So I really appreciated him taking the time to come and join us. Last minute he rearranged his schedule to come out for it and it was great, by the way, on the point on energy, which I still think is the biggest unsolved issue right now in America besides the federal deficit and the debt problem. Chris Wright agreed to rearrange his schedule to come and join us at the All In Summit in September.

[David Sacks]

Oh, great.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Continue the conversation. We didn't get enough time to talk about it, so we are going to hear more from Chris, particularly with a particular focus, which is what I wanted to spend time on and we didn't get a chance last week on nuclear.

[David Sacks]

And where are we?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Because he actually is very passionate, like he said at the thing, it's where he's spending most of his time right now. And I think it's very good to hear the deep dive on where we are in the cycle on trying to accelerate nuclear energy deployment in the United States.

[David Sacks]

Zach, same question to you. After potus, you got two or three moments that stood out.

[Jason Calacanis]

Let's just talk about the executive orders for a second because I think it's pretty cool that the President United States signed three executive orders at the All In Summit that we just hosted. I mean, that was pretty amazing. One of them was to promote AI exports because we want the American tech stack to become the global standard. The second was around AI infrastructure to make permitting easier so we can help solve those energy problems. You're talking about Friedberg. And then the third one was on preventing woke AI in the federal government. And that to me is probably my personal favorite because we spent a couple of years on the show talking about how when we were talking about woke up, woke, you're really talking about censorship. Right. We were talking about censoring people's views based on bias, ideological bias, ideological dogmas. We saw what was happening in social media before Elon bought X. That helped bring things back. But we were on a track, I think, before President Trump's election to repeat that whole social media censorship apparatus in the form of AI bias or AI censorship. And we saw this with the whole black George Washington and where some AI models were saying it was worse to misgender someone than to have a global thermonuclear war.

[David Sacks]

Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

And this wasn't an accident because if you go back to the Biden executive order on AI, there was something like 20 pages of language on there encouraging DEI values to be infused into AI models. So again, we were on track to repeat all the social media censorship, all the trust and safety stuff in this new world of AI. But it would have been even more insidious because at least when someone gets censored, you kind of find out about it.

[David Sacks]

It's explicit, it's not.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's explicit. Yeah, but with AI, it would have been worse because you wouldn't have even known it would just be there rewriting history in real time to serve a current political agenda. It would've been brainwashing our kids.

[David Sacks]

Oh, and people trust these AIs more than they should. I mean, these things are making a prediction of the next word coming. This is not like God given truth here. And so Friedberg, you wanted to interject about this one because this is actually. I'll be honest, Sacks, I'm surprised you're saying this was the most important one to you. I like that you clarified it because it was the one that was mocked or kind of like people were like, what? Why is this important? I think you made a good case for why it's important. Freeberg, your response?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah, but Sacks, this is not about broadly making, quote, AI. Non ideological. Private companies should still have the right through freedom of speech or freedom of expression or freedom to operate to make AI that does whatever they want it to do. What the EO was, was that the federal government would not procure ideologically biased AI. Is that correct?

[Jason Calacanis]

Yes, exactly. No, we're, we're aware.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Just to make sure that the federal government is not trying to instruct private companies how to operate. It's simply saying if you want to sell to us, these are the rules of the road.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yes, that's true. So we were very careful about the First Amendment issues. And you're right that if a private company wants to put out a biased AI product, we're not going to tell people they can't use it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Right. And it could work, it could be successful, people might like it, yada yada.

[Jason Calacanis]

We're just saying that the federal government is not going to spend taxpayer money buying AI models that have compromised their accuracy and quality because their beholden to some ideological agenda.

[David Sacks]

Which is similar to the approach with the universities. Right? Hey, listen, you could have a biased university. We're just not going to fund it. We're not participating. I think it's quite reasonable in that way.

[Jason Calacanis]

I would just say that we were a lot more careful about this than the Biden administration was when they required that DEI be inserted into all these models. They didn't distinguish between public and private money or government procurement versus private models. So they just, they were trying to suffuse DEI into everything. And what we're looking for here is just neutrality. Right? We're looking for a lack of ideological bias. The first step was to get rid of that Biden EO which the President did his first week in office. This goes a little bit further and it's a little bit of a shot across the bow of these Silicon Valley companies saying, look, you need to play it straight. You need to be ideologically unbiased as the default. As the default. When you sell to the government, you can't insert your values at the expense of accuracy. Look, at the end of the day, accuracy and truth seeking is the standard. Right? You can. That's the goal. So we don't want the quality, accuracy and truth seeking to be sacrificed because of these ideological.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Are you still seeing that, like when you say these Silicon Valley companies, I mean, is this still kind of a widespread concern or widespread deployment from your point of view, where you're sitting? Like, are you still seeing a lot of the models being trained on ideological systems that are preferential to one group and not to another?

[Jason Calacanis]

I think it was a much bigger concern six months ago. And I think there's been such a huge vibe shift since President Trump's election and taking office that the WOKE stuff is sort of going away on its own. And I think that's the trajectory we're headed. But it was.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But you still think it's important enough to make sure that there's an error?

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, it's like, look, this is. Make sure this thing doesn't come back from the dead. I think there's been a huge vibe shift since President Trump's election and WOKE has definitely fallen out of favor and it seems to be going away on its own. But we could still get Orwellian outcomes with AI. And I do think it's very important to just keep underscoring that what AI models should be focused on is the truth is on accuracy, and we don't want ideological agendas to sacrifice that. And I think that even though this is a less salient issue now than six months ago, precisely because of the vibe shift, I still think it's important to underscore this point that we don't want.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Would you go so far as we.

[Jason Calacanis]

Don'T want AI taking an Orwellian direction?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah. Would you go so far as to limit free speech and make it non ideologically biased? Like, would you make that law if you could? Because again, the decision about the federal government procuring versus what these private companies can choose to reflect as their, quote, values in their systems?

[David Sacks]

No, he just. You already answered he would not. Yeah. No.

[Jason Calacanis]

Look, we understand the difference between public procurement and private speech. And again, in a way that the Biden administration did not because they were saying that all AI models had to.

[David Sacks]

Be adhere to a specific ideology.

[Jason Calacanis]

To the CEI stuff, it was an.

[David Sacks]

Ideology they wanted embedded in it. You're saying don't put an ideology. But just to be clear here, I want to make one point. This is the defaults. Anybody who wants to, when they start their prompt or they set up their preferred language model could say, I'm an atheist, here's what I believe. Please speak to me with this in mind. Or I'm a Catholic, you know, I'm a prophet, whatever you want.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

That's right.

[David Sacks]

Here's my belief system. Please never reference, you know, these three subject matters in this way. So this is the default. I think it's a great thing to explain to you.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think that's a great example. Jcal. I do think we'll end up seeing religious AI. I think we'll see AI that's tuned to people's religious. But I think, yeah, I have one.

[David Sacks]

Of the startups we did was doing a learning app and they were struggling and they just made a prayer app and their prayer app went parabolic and now they're just like printing money. So there is definitely a huge market here.

[Jason Calacanis]

Jake, how. What were your highlights?

[David Sacks]

It was great to be, you know, included in everything. So I appreciate that we had no, I mean, dead serious.

[Jason Calacanis]

Your invitation finally didn't get lost in the mail.

[David Sacks]

No, but here's the thing. I think this could have been a non all in thing. It could have just been, you know, you could have done it and just invited who you wanted to. So I like that it was under the all in umbrella and that we didn't censor anything and we went right at hard topics. I'm a moderate. I know people want to make me into like a stupid lib, but I am an independent moderate. And there were moments in time when we had great debate too. This wasn't just a love letter to the administration. One of the great moments was J.D. vance. It was just great that he wanted to come chop it up and just hang with the besties. And he came out and he went right at me. He was like, hey, you treated me like a beep at the thing. We had a big debate and you know, he went right at me and then I was like, okay, it's on. We want to talk about stuff. And he's like, yeah, let's get into it. And that's what I love about jd. JD to me seems like the politician of the future. I know this is like the Trump.

[David Friedberg]

Administration, but so you like him?

[David Sacks]

No, no, I'm in like with Trump. I'm in love with JD because he's young, he's opinionated, and he likes to mix it up. He's on Twitter all day long. He engages people on Twitter, he engages people in other groups. I'll leave it at that. And we had a really, I think, honest discussion about immigration and we got back to the high skilled immigration question. That's the third rail for MAGA and for the country right now. Immigration recruiting, you mean?

[Jason Calacanis]

You brought it up right off the bat?

[David Sacks]

No, no. He said he wanted your hobby horse.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You brought it up.

[David Sacks]

No, no, no.

[Jason Calacanis]

You're a hobby horse.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Very pretty. He took advantage of yourself.

[David Sacks]

I wan the debate. And I said, okay, let's continue the debate. So here we go. He was super spicy and he made a great, super spicy point that I want to point out here on Amplify if companies are going to be laying people off. And there was an incredible chart that came out. It was in the Financial Times and they showed male college graduates versus non college graduate males. And there was usually a huge gap in unemployment between those two. In other words, if you had the college degree, you had a much better chance than the non college degree male. And now those two things have flipped or they're like neck and neck. If you have a college degree, you have no advantage as a man coming out in this 20 to 27 year old range. This is men, women are actually doing better, more women in college than men, yada, yada. But he's very attuned to this and he said he's got big concerns right now. So this is again why I love JD Because JD is very tuned into the fact that people are asking for more H1B visas and that typically is to save money and supposed to be very skilled people. But why is Microsoft laying off 9,000 people then asking for more, you know, H1B visas? This is a really honest, truth seeking question. And it's hard for this administration to talk about this issue because I know you got Steve, Miller, Bannon, whatever, people all the way on one side who wanted to port 20, 30 million people. Tucker. And then you have other people who are more moderate. And I thought that was like a really great moment in time for America and for us as a podcast to challenge and have a really important discussion. And he made some great points there. Number two, we had a great debate, I think about energy.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, disagree. Go ahead.

[David Sacks]

You disagree.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, I disagree with the cause. I think you challenged him with. I think you challenged him with things that were not facts and not true. And I'm happy to debate that with you offline. I think he was caught off guard, but I think it was pretty like.

[David Sacks]

Well, no.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Rough and inappropriate.

[David Sacks]

If you think it's inappropriate, that's fine.

[Jason Calacanis]

I. Jake, Al's favorite moments were all the ones where he got the ones.

[David Sacks]

Where we had debate.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's what you're describing.

[David Sacks]

No, no, where there were debates.

[Jason Calacanis]

When you got into debates with the Vice President, you got into it with the Secretary of Energy. Those are your favorite moments when you got to.

[David Sacks]

Okay, great. So, okay, fine. I like when there's a little conflict, a little debate about an important issue. And when I walk the audience, which was, you know, 90% Republican, GOP, MAGA, et cetera, people said that was a great moment. I really like that debate because he kept saying like non reliable energy or whatever. And I was like, you're talking about solar. And I think there was a little misinformation.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, it's not misinformation.

[David Sacks]

You put it with a battery. Right Now, Texas is 30% some days, wind and energy. You know, like, I can tell you, I live in the great state of Texas.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Texas is. Texas is roughly 5% doing solar, just so you know.

[David Sacks]

What's that?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Texas is roughly 5% solar.

[David Sacks]

Right. And wind puts it up to 25 to 30% on the top days is coming from that. My point about that is. And it's cheaper to put in a solar and battery farm than a new coal plant. It is 100%. We can pull up the stats.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It is twice the cost to do solar than it is to do nat gas. It takes 4,000 acres. Whereas nat gas. Nat gas takes 20 acres.

[David Sacks]

I said coal.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No one said the big advocacy with these guys is to use nat gas. Methane.

[David Sacks]

Oh, no, he was saying these. Methane, coal, clean coal. Clean coal. He said it 50 times.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

These methane plants are half the cost of solar. They can get stood up in less than two years to generate a gigawatt. And instead of being 4,000 acres of solar, you can get it done for, you know, call it 20 acres.

[David Sacks]

Now talk a little bit about pollution.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And that's a big part of why they're doing this. Well, a big part of methane is that it's actually cleaner than coal, which is why they're using it. Cleaner than oil, nuclear, cleaner than oil. And the two dirtiest ways of getting energy.

[David Sacks]

Now, science guy, now do so.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, I'm trying to give you the fact about why. About why it is cheaper and faster, which is what he was making an advocacy for. Right. It's not about like solar. Yes, you're right, it has a lower carbon footprint when you're running it. But at the end of the day, what these guys are focused on and a big challenge for America is how do we scale energy production in the states and scaling energy production. I personally think we need to fix the regulatory roadblocks in nuclear and Chris Wright's been very vocal.

[David Sacks]

We all agree on that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

But the fact is this NAT gas supply that we have in the United States and the fact that we can deploy NAT gas energy production very quickly is what makes it such a reliable source right now. If the US wants to have a chance at scaling from 1 terawatt to 2 faster than we're in agreement today. And that's the reason, you know, it's not, it's not about like solar is being bad. Solar is bad. Like, that's not the argument. It's just like, dude, we gotta get moving fast and we gotta have reliable energy.

[David Sacks]

I just want to point out in our debates, I just want to point in our debates when there's bad faith moments, I think it's a bad faith moment for when I say, say coal versus solar and then you say, no, you're wrong, it's solar versus NAT gas. And that's what he was doing. This is what politicians do here on all in. We like to do, you know, fact based, truth first stuff, not biased stuff. And so solar, you're comparing solar and how fast it is versus how fast it is to go to NAT gas. Of course it's faster to go to NAT gas if we have those available. Let's put that aside. It's an important debate. The fact that you and I are debating it is important. And I also thought Lisa from AMD was fantastic. I haven't heard from her, by the way.

[Jason Calacanis]

I just wanna point out that when I got back to the conference, so I left for a time to go back to the White House and then I came back. The first thing everyone said to me when I got back was, did you see jkow being a jerk to Chris Wright? Everyone was like all tizzy about the. Yeah, a jerk.

[David Sacks]

He's a civil servant. He has to answer hard questions.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You didn't talk to him in the way that you would.

[Jason Calacanis]

Basically everyone thought you were a jerk to Chris wr. Right? And you were kind of a jerk to jd. And what are your favorite moments? What are your favorite moments from the conference you're reminiscing about?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Said you were an to me.

[David Sacks]

Anyway, the point is, one thing you're going to get here at the All In Podcast.

[Jason Calacanis]

This is what everyone, two out of.

[David Sacks]

Three were the most.

[Jason Calacanis]

Everyone was saying this. You almost derailed the whole thing.

[David Sacks]

No way derailed it. You're a civil servant, Mr. Sachs. You're a civil servant. You're all civil service.

[Jason Calacanis]

I've been putting up with you for five years of this podcast.

[David Sacks]

The hard questions.

[Jason Calacanis]

It was perfect training for government services beyond the podcast being interrupted by you for five years. Yes, that's why I'm so ready.

[David Sacks]

Well, you work for us, all of you. And you're all going to take hard questions and you're all going to take hard questions on September 7th, 8th and 9th when we have the All In Summit in Los Angeles.

[Jason Calacanis]

By the way. By the way, one thing I'll say is Chris Wright's chief of staff came up to me afterwards and I said, I'm sorry. I heard JCAL was a jerk to Secretary Wright. And he's like, oh, no. Chris loved it. He loves mixing it up.

[David Sacks]

Okay. Of course.

[Jason Calacanis]

And he's coming to all in summit on September 8, so can't wait to debate him more.

[David Sacks]

Can't wait to mix it up more.

[Jason Calacanis]

So he likes mixing it up. So kudos to him.

[David Sacks]

Okay. And so did.

[Jason Calacanis]

So did J.D. vance, the vice president to you. Stop calling J.D. by the way.

[David Sacks]

Well, I mean, listen, I just want to say Vice President J.D. vance and I have been directly communicating. We have a week. Yes.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, you haven't.

[David Sacks]

David Sacks, your worst nightmare.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh my God, your worst nightmare is ruined. What the fuck?

[Jason Calacanis]

We let Jake Allen to Washington and now look what's happening.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, and listen, I want to level set with everybody we. I am going to ask whatever question I want to whatever guest we have, and nobody's stopping me. The only way you're going to stop me is by writing me a huge fucking check to buy me out of this podcast and replacing me with some mid until.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Secret Service keeps you off stage. Which might be an option.

[David Sacks]

Or Secret Service keeps you off stage. But the truth is, this is one of the great things about this administration sex is that they love to mix it up. They like great debate. You know who didn't like great debate and ran from it? Kamalama. Ding Dong. She wouldn't even come on this podcast. You know who doesn't like debate Weekend at Bernie's Biden. Who didn't even know what a podcast is? Tim Waltz. Who doesn't?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You definitely. You definitely have your moments, bro.

[David Sacks]

You definitely have But Tim Waltz doesn't own an equity. He clearly doesn't own one share of any company, doesn't own his home. And Tim Waltz is on there giving a hard time about the Trump savings accounts. I mean, I don't even know if that's.

[Jason Calacanis]

He owns a camo hat, though, which you loved. You thought that was going in the election.

[David Sacks]

He might be able to speak to, like, the middle of America. And then I find out, like, when they do the deep oppo research, that the guy doesn't own one stock, the guy doesn't own his home, he's financially.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Illiterate, and we're making him the government. He's been employed by the government his whole life.

[David Sacks]

I mean, there it is. There it is.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's what Jake thought would win them the election. You're never going to live that down. I remember when you tweeted, you thought that was it. You thought that was the masterstroke. I thought the masterstroke that was going to win them the election.

[David Sacks]

Hey, listen, no, Stracanus does not bat a thousand. Even. No, Stracanus cannot bat a thousand. But it did come out, by the way, that Nancy Pelosi wanted to do the Speedrun primary. I don't know if you saw that. Just not to rehash too much stuff, Sacks, I want to say there was one point of difference, if you want to get into it, around the content part of it, and this is something that the press was having a field day with, and they really keyed on, which was, hey, respecting ip, respecting copyright, what's the feedback been so far on that? Which was a pretty spicy part of President Trump's speech.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, I think what the President said was just very pragmatic. He said we had to have a common sense approach towards intellectual property. And he said if you have to make a deal with every single article on the Internet, every single website, every single book, every piece of IP in order to train an AI model, it wasn't feasible. He said, look, I appreciate the work that went into people creating these works, but you're not going to be able to negotiate a deal for every single one of them. And if we require our AI models to do that, and China doesn't, and they won't, they're just training on everything, whether it's pirated or not, then we're going to lose AI rays. So I think he took the side of a fair use definition. I don't know if he used the term fair use, but effectively he was taking the side of a reasonable fair.

[David Sacks]

Use what did you think of that part? Dave Friedberg, do you have any thoughts for Chamath on that part?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think he's absolutely right. I've said this before. If something's in the Internet, if something's in the open domain, and I strongly disagree with the idea that AI getting trained is the same as AI replicating copyright material. If AI outputs text or outputs audio or outputs video that contains copyright material, it is 100% in violation of copyright.

[Jason Calacanis]

And he said that, by the way.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes. And if the AI is learning, it is understanding patterns, it is understanding reasoning, it is understanding concepts by reading copyright material, just like humans do. A writer, an author reads a bunch of fiction, learns good techniques, learns good concepts, learns good theory from reading all those books, and then goes and writes his or her own book. They are not violating copyright material in the same way that it's a paywall.

[David Sacks]

Friedberg, what if it's all New York Times content?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

If it's behind the open Internet 100%, you're 100% correct. That should be paid for or licensed. I'm talking about the open Internet. I'm talking about open material. I'm talking about stuff that's in the open domain.

[Jason Calacanis]

Common crawl. There's a thing called common crawl.

[David Sacks]

If there was. If somebody stole 100 books, let's say, and put them on their website, and it was a pirated Russian website with 1,000 books on it, and you accidentally crawled it, you would be obligated to take that out. Then I think we all agree.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Correct?

[David Sacks]

Okay, Correct. Because that's what a lot of the lawsuits around. So I think we're reaching something. I just want to say, you know, this is such an important point, especially to me as a content creator and somebody who spent his career in this. I've been thinking about the end game and I was. I'm here in Park City. I was just giving us a keynote and I wanted to show you something. I made sax because I think we have to get to the. The end game here. So in my talk, I talked a little bit about how can we get through this fight and then maybe getting to a solution. So I had my team mock up the New York Times website here and chatgpt doing a deal with them. So here you see you're on the New York Times website and you ask it a question powered by GPT. You ask it. Hey, you might ask this question. In fact, you log in with your chat GPT credentials and it could be Grok, it could be Gemini. Give me the earliest mentions of Putin. You know, if you were a fan of Putin or something, and it would then go through that and give you your. Your Putin references. And then I made another one. And then obviously this would be an exclusive to ChatGPT. It would be one of those things where, you know, they get an exclusive. And then here on the Disney plus channel, imagine you could make yourself into a Jedi Knight and you could then upload your photo. You know, kids might really get into this. You upload your photo, you can make. You talked about this freebird a couple of times of the future of narrative storytelling up your photo, and then it makes you into a Jedi Knight. There's Darth Calacanis.

[Jason Calacanis]

So that looks to me like you're infringing on their trademark.

[David Sacks]

What's that?

[Jason Calacanis]

Are you infringing on their copyright?

[David Sacks]

This is fair use. This is fair use. This is a perfect example of fair use for editorial.

[David Friedberg]

You're also infringing on some Ozempic.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's absolutely.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Trust me, I am definitely infringing on some Ozempic here, guys.

[David Sacks]

I'm past Ozempic. I'm onto peptides now, man. I'm on the Wolverine Protocol, so. Look, are you. Yeah, I started doing the. I mean, I don't. You and Vinny.

[David Friedberg]

What could go wrong?

[David Sacks]

Don't take a podcaster's advice. Please don't take a podcaster's advice on your health care rule number one. Take Chamath's advice because he's got 6% body fat, which I think attributes to much of your pomp and circumstance around your privates. I think it has to do with the lack of fat, but I'm going to leave it at that.

[David Friedberg]

First of all, it's 11 and a half, but you know, it. That's. That's like that, right? That's like right before I go on summer vacation. Then it ends up at 12 or 13.

[David Sacks]

Did you go get that. Did you go get that gelato? What was that place we went that we love?

[David Friedberg]

Lulu.

[David Sacks]

Me.

[David Friedberg]

I've gone there every day. Every day so far. Did you do two or one?

[David Sacks]

Be honest.

[David Friedberg]

Two or one? I've had. I've had. I've been doing.

[David Sacks]

No, no. Per session. Do you do two or one be.

[David Friedberg]

Per se. Too? I start with the medium and then I. And I finish with a small.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, exactly. You. This stuff is so good.

[David Friedberg]

I've never tasted any gelato like this. It's incredible.

[David Sacks]

I mean, it's unbelievable. We have to license it for the United States and put it into the all in brand we have to license it from them.

[David Friedberg]

It's really incredible.

[David Sacks]

But Chamath, just generally speaking, or anybody who wants to have at it. Friedberg Sachs. What do we think about the end game here? Because there's some major lawsuits here. They're going to get settled in the next year or two. What do we think about sort of the future I've shown here today?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think what Sachs just highlighted is exactly right.

[Jason Calacanis]

Look, we got to have a common sense approach here or we're going to lose the AI race. I mean, one of the. Hold on. One of the key determinants of AI quality is the amount of data that you have. It's very simple, right? There's a few building blocks. There's energy, there's chips, and there's data and there's algorithms. And if you lose on any one of those dimensions, then you're in trouble, right? So look, you just can't have a situation where China can train on the entire Internet and our AI models are hamstrung by needing to contract, negotiate contracts with every single website.

[David Sacks]

But right now, Elon owns X, right? He owns Twitter for now. X. Does Sam Altman have the right to use X in his corpus?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's publicly available.

[David Sacks]

No, it's not. No. It is not a public endpoint. It's not a public.

[Jason Calacanis]

I just, honestly, I don't know. There's. I don't know the answer to that. There's some edge cases here we're going.

[David Friedberg]

To come up with, not about whether it's behind a paywall or not. It's whether these APIs exist and whether you're. You're actually contractually allowed to use them or not.

[David Sacks]

The terms of service.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Correct, the terms of service. It's published on every website what the terms of service are with respect to the content.

[Jason Calacanis]

I think it would be okay to let people opt out, you know, so we already have this with Common Crawl. You can put in the footer of the website, you put in robots Txt and you opt out of Common Crawl. Common Crawl is like this nonprofit organization that basically archives the entire web every.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Few months, funded by Gil Elbaz, former founder.

[David Sacks]

Yeah.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Formerly of Google. Great fan of the pod, shows up to our summit. Great guy. And all of OpenAI was built off of Common Crawl originally the first.

[David Sacks]

And he. But they're very clear, by the way, they say you have to clear copyrights. You don't get to just use open Chrome.

[David Friedberg]

Can I go out on a limb? I don't know if you guys saw this Amazon deal with the New York Times for $25 million. Did you see that today?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, I didn't see today.

[David Sacks]

Explain it, please.

[David Friedberg]

I think that the New York Times licensed Amazon, all of their content, including the athletic, and a bunch of other things for training. 20 million. Sorry, 20 million a year.

[David Sacks]

Okay, here we go.

[David Friedberg]

I read that and I thought, this is the peak of these deals. These deals will only go down in terms of dollar value from here. And it. It actually brought me to this point where I was thinking to myself, is it even realistic to believe that patents and copyrights actually exist in five years? And I went through this exercise of, like, if a computer studies the periodic table and also understands the laws of physics, the laws of biology, the laws of chemistry, and then independently derives some material that is otherwise patented, what will happen? And then separately, if two competing AIs invent a new material from scratch, how will the international courts deal with this? And if you take all of these examples to the limit, at the limit, the idea that there are copyrights, enforceable copyrights, I think, is a very fragile assumption. So I'm actually thinking more that we have to spend some time understanding the landscape of a world that doesn't have copyrights and patent protections. And instead, what is the surface area in which you compete? What is trade secret? What does that mean in a world of AI? And I think it's quite an interesting thing to think about.

[David Sacks]

Patents are a totally different beast. I think that's a fascinating string to pull on. I will tell you, I will take the other side of the bet. If we want to make a poly market on this, I will guarantee that this will be the beginning of the deals, and the deals will go up from here. I'll tell you why. The reason the New York Times made that deal is to make it apparent that what OpenAI has done has damaged their business. Because now they have a customer, and their customer is Jeff Bezos at Amazon and Jassy. And now they can show damages because. And they now those damages could give them an injunction against OpenAI. And OpenAI has got to take it out of their crawl of their, you know, construct. And that's going to be really expensive for them. It's not doable, but it's going to be expensive. And let's think on a societal basis of what we want as a society. Do we want a society in which journalists, writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors cannot make a living. Podcasters, or do we want a world in which they can and I think technology. Hold on, let me finish.

[David Friedberg]

But you're assuming as a technologist.

[David Sacks]

As a technologist, we typically think if we can crawl it, it's ours. What I can tell you is an artist is if I make it, it's mine. And you need my permission because it's my art. And I think the industry will do better if they respect them, because now the New York Times can hire more fact checkers.

[David Friedberg]

But can I just ask you a question?

[David Sacks]

Go ahead, sure.

[David Friedberg]

But why do you have to connect the two as immutable things? Meaning why can't somebody make something still? You know, let's just say it's a song, but that song can now be made by multiple AI models. But if they make the song, there's a reasonable claim that even if they don't have the copyright, more people will want them to perform the song than some random AI. So can't you make a living without.

[David Sacks]

Having the copyright, which is the choice of the artist? Some artists were very well known for not wanting their art to exist in some mediums. As a perfect example, the Rolling Stones for a long time thought they would be sellouts if they had their music used in commercials. And when they did start me up with Windows, that was a really big concession from them. And that's up to the artist to make that decision. You make a valid claim, hey, yeah, you go on tour, you make more money. But that's the artist decision, not the technologists or the people stealing their content. And by the way, $20 million a year is a hundred, $200,000. Highly paid journalists, fact checkers at the New York Times, they're going to get 10 of those deals and it's going to create a golden era age of journalism and content. And we should be happy. I told you.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah, I told you this example, Jason. But at Beast, we did a licensing deal of our content to allow OpenAI to learn to run training runs on our videos. And at the board, the thing that we kept talking about was I was really concerned, like, let's just do a couple of year deal max.

[David Sacks]

Sure.

[David Friedberg]

The reason is we have no idea what this looks like in five or 10 years. And there's just as much chance to your point, that we get it wrong as right now, that was about six months ago. And so the intuition that I had back then was maybe we should keep the deal term as short as possible. But now when I see how important AI is in the global landscape and what China is doing, I think on the margins that this idea that these copyrights will mean something in my mind, I am underwriting the value of these things going to zero. And I'm asking myself instead, for my businesses, how are we actually building a real defensible moat and not a piece of paper that we can use to sue somebody?

[David Sacks]

Okay, Freeberg, you want the last word here? We got to move on to some other topics.

[Jason Calacanis]

I just want to actually get the last word. I just want to be clear that nobody is losing their copyright. Copyright is the right not to have your work copied. And if an AI model produces, outputs that copy or plagiarize your work, then that's a violation of the law. And I think the President specifically said that we're not allowing copying or plagiarizing. The question is whether AI models are allowed to do math on the Internet.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Pattern recognition. Pattern recognition, Basically, that's what it is. And JCal, I think you're conflating the two, and I don't want to be interrupted.

[David Sacks]

I understand this. I understand the distinction.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And I think that this idea that I can't, for example, go to the library, rent a book, read it, and then learn some of the good techniques on how to write a good book should be restricted to humans in this AI context. Like, this is exactly what they're doing. They're identifying patterns, and then they're building predictive algorithms that allow them to output stuff that starts to fit within different kind of variable settings.

[David Friedberg]

Do you guys think it's possible that if you allocated enough compute at the problem, you could write Michael Crichton's Jurassic park de Novo without ever having read it? Yeah, me too. Me too.

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't know what that would mean.

[David Friedberg]

Like, well, this is my point.

[Jason Calacanis]

I know who Michael Crichton is, and I know what Jurassic park is. I don't know what it means to.

[David Friedberg]

Deal with this issue.

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't know what it means to say, can AI write that?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Like, but you guys remember the Ed Sheeran lawsuit? Do you remember that?

[David Sacks]

I did. But let me just make one point here on this, because you're saying, I don't understand it. I spent my career in it. I understand it much better than you do. And I understand it from lawsuits and being in the weeds on it. Like, I understand it from first principles, which you do not. And I will say, this is what we're talking about here, is the definition. It's the definition of a derivative work, and the output matters. So if you were to take my knowledge and then create a derivative work from it, and you used a percentage of my work, and that's where this will get into the Nuance is what percentage of the original work is used in the derivative work and under what context. A commercial context or a non commercial. This is clearly a commercial one. If It's a. If OpenAI was a nonprofit, right now we'd be having a distinctly different discussion because it would. There would be. You wouldn't be competing with me as the copyright holder to use this new medium and create the derivative works. And it has to change substantially. So if it's a, if it's a.

[Jason Calacanis]

Cliff Notes when China has the only models that are able to meet your stringent definitions of copyright.

[David Sacks]

Well, no, and here's the thing. I think the China fear. The China fear is bullshit. I'll be totally honest here. Just because China steals IP does not mean you get to steal from Americans. In America we have rules. And when you go to China, and.

[Jason Calacanis]

By the way, we've spent the last.

[David Sacks]

30 years, the major issue with China is not Taiwan, it has been respecting.

[David Friedberg]

Let me reframe this technology industry itself.

[David Sacks]

Let me finish. The technology industry itself has leaned on our government for 3040 years, including Microsoft, including Google, to make sure our trade secrets are not stolen, our IP is not stolen, our movies are not stolen. That is the key issue with China. So just because China's a theme does not mean American companies get to.

[Jason Calacanis]

Have you seen, have you seen the latest batch of Chinese open source models or open models?

[David Sacks]

They steal everything. Does that mean you should be able to steal Windows? Should you be able to steal.

[David Friedberg]

Let me ask you a question, Jason, Let me ask you this.

[Jason Calacanis]

Stealing.

[David Friedberg]

Elon has said this pretty clearly. But Grok 5 and for sure Grok 6 will not use common crawl. It will not use the Internet. Okay. It'll just be an enormous amount of synthetic data. And back to what Friedberg and I just agreed upon. If you synthetically go and try to generate all this content to learn across, you're invariably going to produce something that's already been created.

[David Sacks]

That's like some sci Fi level world.

[David Friedberg]

I understand that's what's happening now. It's happening now.

[David Sacks]

If somebody. What do you think happens to Grok.

[David Friedberg]

5 or Grok 6? Is that violating copyright?

[David Sacks]

It didn't even know that it existed on the output. Yeah, that's fine. If it on the output created a similar work, they would need to then take it down. And so that would be a really interesting new. That's a new space we're going to have to contend with. So can I give you an example? If it does happen is a new concept that we would have to address in a new way.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I'll give you a Science Corner example. This Evo2 model that they publish at the ARC Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main source, we had him talk experiment. So that evo2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world. Trillions and trillions of base pair of data that they ingested. And then they looked at patterns in DNA and that's it. They had no context for what the DNA represented. They had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is. And you know what it did, they fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA without having any context. This is the breast cancer allele. And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all. It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer. And it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism. So that's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps that these AI models are starting to identify. And I think to Chamath's point, we may end up seeing this in things like entertainment as well.

[David Sacks]

All right, this has been an amazing debate. We gotta move on.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And you know what?

[David Sacks]

We're gonna have more amazing debates September 7th through 9th in Los Angeles at the All In Summit. The lineup is stacked. Alibaba's co founder Josiah Thoma, Bravo co founder, Ark Invest, Cathie Wood, Uber CEO Dara Sequoia's Roelof Botha, YouTuber Cleo Abram and many, many more coming to actually get the last word here. Go.

[Jason Calacanis]

I was just highlighting this tweet that I saw where talking about Chinese open wave models are basically open source models. So basically all the leading American models are closed source and all the leading Chinese models are open source. This is kind of how things have played out. It's a pretty good technique for catching up is to open source because then you get the larger open source developer community helping you out.

[David Sacks]

That's great.

[Jason Calacanis]

But the point is just that these open source models are catching up pretty fast. We're ahead in many other aspects. Our chips are a lot better, our data centers are better and so on. And I'd say our closed source Models are better, but they have this one area of open source models. So again, if you hamstring our AI models access to data by creating a whole bunch of new requirements for contract negotiations, we could really lose the AI race. This is a really big deal. It's not a made up concern. I don't know why you think it's made up.

[David Sacks]

I never said that it's made up. I think it's an opportunity for America to actually have a distinct advantage, which is that $20 million from Amazon alone is 1% of the new York Times revenue. And that's gonna go directly to the bottom line. It's gonna allow them to hire more journalists. Then that protected site will have be giving in real time something. These language models are gonna have to go hack and steal that real time data is gonna be a distinct advantage for Gemini OpenAI, Amazon, whoever chooses to do it. And we can create.

[Jason Calacanis]

You have this like nostalgic sort of quasi romantic notions about like journalism and the need to save the New York Times. It's also art, all this stuff.

[David Sacks]

I mean, you can say all the derogatory things you want about me personally. Sachs, that argument doesn't work. No, no. You just said I have this whole nostalgia whatever when you.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, you do. You're nostalgic for journalism as it used to exist.

[David Sacks]

When I know I've beat you in the debate is when you make it personal like that. It's not personal. I'm not being nostalgic. I'm trying to create a sustainable, a sustainable advantage for America. And you are our public servant. And you're looking at.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You will take my feedback.

[Jason Calacanis]

We're going to ignore your feedback. We're going to ignore your feedback. We're throwing in the trash.

[David Sacks]

No, you take it. And I will be showing up at the White House for my tour.

[Jason Calacanis]

You have this crazy idea that we're going to win the AI race by tying one hand behind our back. So that you can subsidize journalists. No, so you can subsidize the New York Times broken business.

[David Sacks]

You'll get more content. You said before you want more training data? Pay for it. Pay for more training data. You're the czar. Take it back to potus. All right, let's keep moving here. We have moving. We have a great, this is great debate, great debate here on the all in podcast. It's not going to stop, folks.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's just you yelling. It's just you yelling, saying things that don't make sense. But okay, you can say that.

[Jason Calacanis]

You only have like three topics.

[David Sacks]

You can personally tell.

[Jason Calacanis]

You know what it is. It's like we got to let in more immigrants, number one.

[David Sacks]

Number two, high skilled immigrants.

[Jason Calacanis]

AI is going to put everyone out of work, by the way. No sense of perceived contradiction between those two things. Number three, we need to like, subsidize.

[David Sacks]

You know, the audience says to me.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, it's the same topic when the.

[David Sacks]

Three of you guys attack me.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, Jason, he's the only.

[David Sacks]

When the audience gang up on me like this and the three of you gang up on this and you personally attack me, the audience comes up to me and they say, wow, you really nailed and beat.

[David Friedberg]

Have I done that today?

[David Sacks]

No, not yet. Not yet. A little bit of the Ozempic.

[Jason Calacanis]

But you just been eating.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, that's true.

[Jason Calacanis]

Strangely, I'm involved in just eating.

[David Sacks]

He's emaciated. He's 11% body fat. Let him eat, let him cook. All right, listen, you and I, Sacks, will do more debate and it's going to be amazing. All in dot com, yadda yadda yadda for tickets. Get in there, folks. We have to get to the docket. We're an hour in and we still have all the news.

[Jason Calacanis]

We should talk about this AI privacy issue that Sam Altman mentioned.

[David Sacks]

All right, that's a great segue because I saw that as well. David Sacks, and as our civil servant working on AI, this is something where you can have an additional contribution. There's more work we can give you. All right, listen, here it is. AI user privacy is becoming an issue because friend of the pod Sam Altman, says there is no legal confidentiality when using his product ChatGPT. Here's a 30 second clip. Again, friend of the pod fop, Sam Altman on Theo Vaughn.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

People talk about the most personal in.

[David Sacks]

Their lives to ChatGPT. Young people especially, like, use it as a therapist, a life coach having these relationship problems. What should I do? And right now, if you talk to a therapist or a lawyer or a doctor about those problems, there's like legal privilege for it. We haven't figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT. So if you go talk to ChatGPT about your most sensitive stuff and then there's like a lawsuit or whatever, like we could be required to produce that. And I think that's very screwed up. I think we should have like the same concept of privacy for your conversations with AI that we do with a therapist or whatever. Okay, Sachs, this is bringing up something super important. What's your take on it?

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, well, I Think this is an interesting topic because like copyright, this is an area where we have existing law, but it does make you rethink whether those laws are truly applicable or make as much sense in this new world. So the existing law, the existing example is search history. The government can get a copy of your search history. They can subpoena it.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, every true crime story starts with the person searched for how do I kill my husband?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Slowly with poison. And then they. That's how it happens.

[Jason Calacanis]

Right, Exactly. The point is though, that I think Sam is right about the legal treatment right now, which is that your chat history isn't any different than the search history in the eyes of the law. But it is much more personal, it's much more interactive than your search history. You are using it like you said, you could use it as your doctor, you could use it as your therapist, you could use it as your lawyer. And so the ability for the federal government to be intrusive is so much greater than with your search history. So I don't know what like the right policy should be yet, but I will say it does make me uncomfortable.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, there's a market.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Can I make a recommendation to my AI czar?

[David Sacks]

Yes, please. He's our service.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Why don't we let AI models get bar certified and get medically certified? So if the AI models, it turns out, are actually proving to be more accurate, more thoughtful, more responsive, more reasonable, whatever it is, whatever metric we're using, and they pass the same criteria as one would need to pass to qualify for the bar or to qualify for a doctor certificate, why don't we do that for the AI? If that then happens, then the same privilege accrues to the AI as it does to the individual human that does it. And now if you extrapolate from where that takes us, if we're suddenly giving AI the same sort of privileged rights that we give to privileged humans, where's that going to take us ultimately with respect to the overall rights for AI?

[David Sacks]

Well, they have responsibility. Hold on a second. I just want to point out here once again, you have a mind blowing concept here. I've never heard anybody vocalize that. Could they actually be certified in that knowledge? And if they pass the test, makes sense, they would. But then you also get responsibility. So with a great power comes great responsibility. I will tell you this. You can turn this stuff off, but this is an opportunity. I'm going to send a note to.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Email and it sounds crazy today, but I guarantee if you put it on Polymarket, there will be a date when this happens, let's do it.

[David Sacks]

That's polymarket. Shout out to Shane. Let's get that up there. I just want to point out I'm going to email Elon about this when I get off the pod. This is an opportunity to create the signal of the signal equivalent of an LLM. All of your chat should be encrypted. All of it should be by default. Encrypt it by default on Grok. Make it so that GROK can't even see it. They don't have it. So when you try to subpoena it, you can do what Tim Cook does, which he says, like, I don't have it. If you want to try to backdoor it, you can. That's a market opportunity and I can tell you I only use the Brave browser and Brave search for this reason. I don't want my search history like saved somewhere or whatever that you can take control of this as an individual but the defaults matter and you have to then do the work. It's a great market opportunity. Chamath. I don't even want to know what you're talking to ChatGPT about. What are you. What's in your chat GBT logs? What's in there? Chamath? How to extend. How to get the extra centimeter. What's in there? You're trying to extend. What's in there?

[David Friedberg]

I keep asking it to find me a moderator.

[David Sacks]

Oh, great. I keep asking it to find me a participant who's not a douche. Oh my God. You are so deep in your villain.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Era and you're leaning into it and I'm so here for Intramot. I love your villain era.

[David Friedberg]

You know why I am so.

[David Sacks]

Why are you going into your villain era?

[David Friedberg]

I am so risk on right now. It's like. It's liberating, actually. It's amazing. It's really amazing.

[David Sacks]

Is there any blowback to. To how outlandish you've become this year? Any blowback at all? Has it had any negative consequence on business or hiring or anything?

[David Friedberg]

No, but, but outlandish. How, how have I been outlandish?

[David Sacks]

You're, you're, you're just filter off. Your filter off and I think it's great. I think they're over two windows back. It's absolutely fantastic we're seeing here.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I asked ChatGPT about my future and my IQ. It's very interesting when you ask ChatGPT to analyze you, I suggest everyone do it.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, actually, yeah, when you just ask ChatGPT or whatever, what do you know about me. And it's scary how much it already does.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's scary.

[David Sacks]

There's this great personality test. You can put this personality test into Grok and this guy like made this prompt and it goes and it tells you all your personality based on your Twitter X history. It is wild how accurate it is.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What does it say about you? Jkal? I'm actually curious.

[David Sacks]

It says the same thing about all of us. We're all like network narcissist, entj. You can literally run the Myers Briggs against your. Yeah, your chat history. It's actually. But I like your mind blowing concept there by the way of like them becoming certified in some way. Okay, fresh economic news. It's time for the administration to take their victory lap. GDP growth was 50% higher than expectations in Q2 as the Fed held rates at 4.25%. In Q1, GDP declined 50 basis points. That's probably due to the imports. People were stockpiling goods.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's the most pointless chart ever.

[David Sacks]

Okay. And then. Yeah, it is.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I agree.

[David Sacks]

It's a little bit.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's distorted by one event.

[David Sacks]

I wanted to have both. I wanted to have both as bar charts. This one.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You're totally on drugs. Just say it.

[David Sacks]

It's okay.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What drugs are you on?

[David Sacks]

I'm not. I have to feel an alp.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We're all friends. You can tell us. Is it really just out?

[David Sacks]

All right, that's it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I'm taking it out.

[Jason Calacanis]

Oh my God.

[David Sacks]

I took it out. And now let's get back to the thing here. Okay? The Fed kept rates unchanged for the fifth straight meeting. This time, two out of 11 Fed governors dissented from Powell's decision. Two of the Dissen dissenters were both Republicans nominated by Trump. So it seems like the Fed is becoming a little polarized now too. First time in 32 years that more than one governor dissented. And yeah, even one person dissenting is rare. Here's a 25 second clip of Powell explaining how GDP factored into the cut decision. Nick, please play the clip. Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity has moderated.

[David Friedberg]

GDP rose at a 1.2% pace in the first half of this year, down from 2.5% last year, although the increase in the second quarter was stronger at 3%.

[David Sacks]

Focusing on the first half of the.

[David Friedberg]

Year helps smooth through the volatility in.

[David Sacks]

The quarterly figures related to the unusual swings in net exports, the PCE index. And then I'll throw this over to you, Sachs, for the official position here for June dropped on Thursday. PCE is the Fed's preferred gauge of inflation over CPI. PCE rose 30bps in June in line with estimates. And if you remember we talked about it in a previous episode, CPI rose a bit 13% or 30 bips from May to June. So we're not close to the 2% target. And that's what the Fed keeps saying. We're not there yet and the economy is el fuego. Sachs, you note. I don't know if you noticed this Sachs, but people are talking about the qdp, the second quarter print, which was amazing for gdp. You were talking about it a bunch chamath on the socials. He keeps referencing the first half. So he's trying to blend those two together I think because of the tariff differences or maybe to smooth it out, as he said. What's your take on this? The GDP boomed in 3%, which is pretty great.

[David Friedberg]

No, the problem that Jerome Powell has is that he's trying to smooth it because it allows him to justify his political decision. Okay, but the reason why you have to segregate Q1 and Q2, Q1 was before tariffs and Q2 was after tariffs. So I think you have to segregate these two things. And if you look at the run rate from Q2, what you're probably going to see in Q3 and beyond is more similar to Q2, which is to say a large surplus, good GDP expansion and moderating inflation. So why does the Fed not cut? Because at this point not cutting is the only thing that you can do to slow the Trump administration down going into the midterms. If you wanted to politicize the job. If, however, on the other hand you just take the data as is and you ignore Q1 because it was pre tariff and you start to look at Q2 and you project forward. If you inject 100 basis point cut into the economy, this thing is going to go gangbusters and Trump is going to look like an economic genius going into 2026. So I think that again, in the absence of politics, you cut.

[David Sacks]

Okay, Sachs, what's the take from inside the administration and around it? I know you're not speaking for the President on this issue, but you're in the administration, so I'm assuming you're.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, look, I'm not speaking for anyone, but obviously the 3% number is way ahead of X expectations. It's a fantastic number. It just feels like everything's humming on all cylinders here. One thing you didn't mention, but I think is relevant is the new trade deal with the eu.

[David Sacks]

We're about to get to that, by the way. That's the next story.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, well, I mean, I would include that because I mean, I think it was a deal that just got announced where the EU is going to open its markets to U.S. products. No tariff on U.S. products, but they will pay a 15% tariff coming into the U.S. they're going to be investing 600 billion in the U.S. they're going to be buying 750 billion of U.S. energy and then some very large number, I guess they didn't specify a number on defense products, basically American military products. Hundreds of billions, which is the follow up to their commitment to raise their contribution to NATO to 5% of GDP, up from I guess it was sort of like 2% before. So, I mean, this is a huge deal for the United States. I think it's a huge win for the Trump administration. And the deal is so good that what I'm seeing from European sources on X, European publications, just commenters, is that they were like outraged. They felt like they got taken to the cleaners here.

[David Sacks]

Good.

[Jason Calacanis]

And you see a lot of that on X, by European side. A lot of the European leaders are saying that Ursula chickened out. So all those stupid taco memes are going away now because people are realizing that Trump's willingness to raise tariffs on these countries as a threat to renegotiate better trade deals is working.

[David Sacks]

It's working.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's working extraordinarily well. Just this EU deal, only to think about it is you add it all up, it's about $2 trillion. It's effectively $2 trillion of stimulus into the US but without money printing.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, over the next three years.

[Jason Calacanis]

So it's non inflationary.

[David Sacks]

It's not insignificant. Friedberg, your thoughts on the Fed, the GDP print, and maybe you could get into the granular details of that print.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

If you pull up the schedule of data. So this is the national income and product accounts data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. So this is where the inflation print comes from. I think there are two lines worth taking significant note of. The first is the furnishings and durable household equipment line. So in June, the cost for furnishings and household stuff jumped 1.3% month over month on an annualized basis. Right. That's almost 15% year over year if it were to continue at that level. And then the second one is this recreational goods and vehicles that jumped 0.9% month over month. Neither of those categories have jumped that much in kind of recent history. So part of the argument that's being made is that what we are seeing in these jumps is actually some of the first effects of the tariffs and the cost of goods that are being imported, because these are largely imported, having an adverse effect on the consumer. And so I think this is kind of a wait and see moment on some of these categories that are predicted to have a tariff price effect starting to show through. So I think this is where a lot of folks are keeping a close eye on, and it kind of provides a little bit of the support for the economists that are saying we should keep rates steady. Because if we are seeing a significant inflationary effect here, it's worth noting that there's something that we need to be thoughtful about in rate politics.

[David Sacks]

I think this is a really good point. If you look in this debate, which is obviously highly political. We're at inflation 2.567%, spending is increasing, obviously, stock market at an all time high, unemployment trending down again. So we're at like 4.1% and people are just yoloing into crypto and they're doing sports betting. Bitcoin at an all time high. I think the Fed now is in a position where cutting rates seems like putting kerosene on the fire. If Trump tanked the economy in Q2, he probably would have gotten the rates. But now I don't think it's reasonable. As you're saying, Dave, the reasons to not cut are building because the economy's on fire. So maybe the shock and bore approach to tariffs, which is now becoming a playbook. I had a nice talk with Lutnick about this, who I love, by the way. He really described to me how they're doing these. And the shock and bore playbook is basically Trump says something completely outrageous, shocking. Everybody goes crazy. The media loses their mind, business leaders lose their mind. Ludnick told me that what he does is he sets the table and proposes something reasonable because, you know, now I'm a big, you know, direct contact with all the administration. Sachs, thank you for that. And he described it. Trump comes in, sees all the stuff, and then he starts making these micro tweaks. So it's on the finish line, it's in the red zone, five yard line. Trump comes in and then he sticks it to them again with three or four extra asks, and then they wrap it up and that this is becoming really effective. So it was chaotic at first. It seemed nonsensical, but they've put the Fed in a really bad position because they've never seen this before. They've never seen this before. So now they're going to be in this defensive position of what if we cut it and the market rips? To your point, Chamath, you just said the market will rip the second they cut that. And the cynical view of this is the market rips as we go into the midterms, which is the same claim the Republicans made about the cuts that Biden did in September right before the election. So there is some level of politics and gamesmanship going on here. But you have to hand it to the Trump administration for what they're doing with this sort of 2.0 playbook. If this was Sachs premeditated and we all just didn't understand it, fine. The outcome here is this administration has to live or die by the Results of these 600 billion from the EU, 550 billion in investment from Japan. You put those two together. Is Lutnick, is that at the event, is that going into the sovereign wealth fund and how does that get, you know, spent? And he said at the discretion of the President. And he's advising him to spend it on putting more nukes in. So that's fascinating. We have a trillion dollars now that we can put into nuclear power plants and these small modular reactors. And that's what Ludnick said he wanted to spend it on. He's going to advise the President to spend it on. But now we've got them investing in our country. It's absolutely brilliant. If it works out. Let's see if it works out.

[Jason Calacanis]

April 2nd was Liberation Day and the media went crazy. They were predicting a Black Monday. The market crashed. They basically tried to spook the markets and create fear. They said that we're going to go into a recession or depression and now look at where we are. It's just a few months later. All the markets are at all time highs. Trump has extracted trillions of dollars in these trade deals that people didn't even.

[David Sacks]

Know he had premeditated. Tell us the truth. What is premeditated?

[Jason Calacanis]

Hold on. President Trump has extracted trillions of dollars from other countries using powers that other presidents didn't even know they had.

[David Sacks]

100%. 100%. Was it premeditated? Cuz it was chaotic. The market didn't. We just had a 3% move because of the media, by the way. We made those moves because they were.

[Jason Calacanis]

Scared and we just had a 3% GDP growth print. I don't see how things could be. What I think happened is that President Trump saw an opportunity here that other people ignored. It's like when a CEO comes in to A company, a new CEO comes in, and that company's been mismanaged for a decade, but it's got wonderful assets on its balance sheet. It's got a market position that's still very strong. It's just been underutilized. And he came in and understood that the United States had tremendous leverage in all these trade negotiations. Actually, they weren't even trade negotiations then in all these trade relationships. And he was able to essentially renegotiate all of them and look at the results. I mean, they're just staggering. And everyone said that, oh, Trump's gonna chicken out, he's not gonna hang tough. It's all these other countries that have folded, like, I don't know, lawn chairs. I mean, they have all capitulated.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, they fold.

[Jason Calacanis]

It's really remarkable.

[David Sacks]

But you're not answering my question. Was this premeditated? Give us some insight here. Come on.

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't know what this. What are you talking about?

[David Sacks]

When they came out and it was like, oh, 100% tariff, 200% tariff. The market was not making that reaction based upon the media. They were making it based on Trump was saying. So was it premeditated, this shock and bore shock and reasonable negotiating strategy, or do you not know? Well, you're not privy to it.

[Jason Calacanis]

Look, I'm not speaking as an insider here, but we said at the time that all that was happening and Larry Summers was on the pot preaching doom, is that all of that was an opening bid. It was all of a start to a negotiation, and we had to see where it ended up and that the administration still had to stick the landing. Okay, but I gotta say, based on eu, Japan and South Korea, I mean, this is looking really good right now.

[David Sacks]

Well, listen, it's the top five that are like 90% of the negotiation, as Trump said. There was another little note he did in the keynote when he kind of drifted into his different things he wanted to talk about where he said, I don't even need to know about the bottom countries. I've never even heard that names of some of these countries. He's just gotta nail the. What, the top five, the top ten, and we're done. And this administration has to stick the landing as well, because these are handshake deals right now. They have to be inked, they have to be approved. So there's a lot more work left to be done. But I am.

[Jason Calacanis]

There's one other piece of it as well. There's one other piece of it. So we talked about the, you know, the fact that Europe has Zero percent tariffs on American products. But, but even after this deal that the European products coming into the U.S. will have a 15% tariff. And we're not including the $600 billion of European investment in the U.S. we're not including the 750 billion of sales of American energy to Europe. Just talking about the tariff, that 15%. And what we're seeing now across the board is generating about 300 billion a year of additional tariff revenue. That goes to help balancing the budget. So 300 billion a year over 10 years is 3 trillion. That is a big number.

[David Sacks]

It's incredible. Yeah, it's got to.

[Jason Calacanis]

So I don't know if that, that completely satisfies Friedberg, but that's a big help.

[David Sacks]

Freeberg, do you think that there is a chance that inflation is going to tick up because of all this? Like, it is a lot of money being pushed into the system again. So could we see a three handle on inflation in the next six months? Or what's the probability of that in your mind? That's the big concern everybody has.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I don't, I don't know. I don't know. I think the big question, if you look at each of these categories, one way to think about it is how much margin is the seller making? If they're making 30% margin and we charge a 15% tariff, does their margin go down to 15% or do they take their margin down to 20% and raise the price by 5%, what's the right balance? And what will happen is that now with this effective, you know, tariff, which is a sort of tax on the system, attacks on the market, market will find its kind of new equilibrium where the buyers are willing to pay X and the sellers are willing to sell at Y. And I think every market's going to be a bit different. So I think in some of these categories, we will see significant inflation where there is a very thin margin that the seller has in selling. And in some of the categories where there's a monopoly and they have a big margin, they're going to eat it because they don't want to have competition and they don't want to see pricing competition emerge. So I think we'll see it vary by category and, you know, we'll see how it goes.

[David Sacks]

All right, listen, this has been another amazing, amazing episode of the number one podcast in the world according to Jensen Huang from Nvidia and me and great job, everybody. Great job, everybody. It's a classic.

[Jason Calacanis]

Everyone, even jcal, even J, even Jason Calcanis, Great job. And Actually, I want to thank Freeberg because Friedberg did most of the work to organize the.

[David Sacks]

Let's give him a big shout out.

[Jason Calacanis]

There's me and the president.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Great job.

[David Sacks]

I mean, guys, can we just make a note here? One of us can run for Manchurian candidate president in eight years. And look at me and the president. I put on the red tie out of respect. I put my blue suit on out of respect for the president. Does it not look like I'm running president?

[David Friedberg]

Jason.

[David Sacks]

Dot Com.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, listen, that photo could be like, you know, that famous photo of Bill Clinton meeting jfk? You know, that could be the. That could be the thing that I'm in, like, with image that propels you to the presidency.

[David Sacks]

I'm in, like. Thank you for giving me that and for putting me in touch with each member of the administration directly. Thank you for that. And we had a wonderful tour of the White House the next day. What a wonderful tour some of us had at the White House the next day. But in all honesty, no, I was. Did you. No, I was taking the pictures.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

That was my joke.

[David Sacks]

It was. All of you guys were there.

[Jason Calacanis]

We would have given you a tour. We could have gotten you a tour.

[David Sacks]

I mean, listen, I love Jay.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Did you ask for a tour? I did ask.

[David Sacks]

I'm not the kind of guy to ask. I'm a guy.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Some of us have actual meetings to do, bro. I mean, it's all good.

[David Sacks]

It's all good. I got a lot going on. I got a lot to announce happen in the coming weeks. But Sacks do take us behind the scene here, and I think it was hilarious. So I don't mind getting trolled by the president. It was great. But how did you. How did that go about behind the scenes that he nailed that joke?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Don't tell him. Leave it.

[David Sacks]

What did you do? I mean, because that looked like it was workshops. Or is he just naturally. I mean, he's obviously naturally comedic, but did you put that in with him? Did you have to clear that with him? Hey, dunk on jcal. Whatever.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, they asked me for the names of, you know, my co hosts and so they could do shout outs. So I gave him the list.

[David Sacks]

Oh, no.

[Jason Calacanis]

And I just. I said. And I put even J California.

[David Sacks]

But, I mean, he went for it.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, he got. We went through it.

[David Sacks]

So he got the joke. Okay.

[Jason Calacanis]

He got the joke. We went through.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He got the last. He got it. He heard the laugh.

[David Sacks]

He heard the laugh and he doubled down.

[Jason Calacanis]

I thought it'd be funny, but no, we went through everyone's names beforehand.

[David Sacks]

And I mean, talk about eq. The guy's EQ is off the charts, man. He just.

[Jason Calacanis]

He's framing his face. I suggested the name jcal and he's like, no, no, no, give me his full name. He thought it was more courteous. He's actually a very courteous man. He wanted to use your full name, not just your nickname.

[David Sacks]

I think what he probably realized was for my parents, who were just over the moon. So thank you for that. It meant a lot to my dad, who's.

[David Friedberg]

That's lovely.

[David Sacks]

Yeah, he's been struggling a bit, and it. It really let me get a little choked up here, but my dad's been struggling a bit, and I got to see him in Brooklyn after that, and we were on a tech stream, and it meant a lot, you know, because for a kid from Brooklyn to get a shout out from the President of the United States is.

[David Friedberg]

You made it.

[David Sacks]

I mean, it's just your father.

[David Friedberg]

Your father should be really proud of you.

[David Sacks]

Thanks, man. Appreciate it. I appreciate it, boys. All right, listen. For your sultan of science, the amazing Dave Freeberg, who put that event together in 10 days and then jumped right in, he's got to run a hollow at the same time. So I just want to give our MVP of the week.

[Jason Calacanis]

We should give a shout out to the Hill and Valley guys for partnering with us.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh, yes.

[David Sacks]

Jacob.

[Jason Calacanis]

Jacob Helberg did a great job.

[David Sacks]

Love Jacob. I love Jacob.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And Delian and Deliant. Thank you. Thank you, guys. They were our partners on the event.

[David Sacks]

Hillen Valley did a great job. Yeah, I love those guys. But yeah, just. I'm giving the MVP of the week of the besties to you, David Freeberg. You put a lot of work into this, so we appreciate it. You're running Ohalo and then you went right into working on the all in Summit, which we'll be at in a couple weeks. Chamath, thank you for buttoning up. We're getting a little complaints from the HR department about the buttons. And so we've now renegotiated that I'm.

[David Friedberg]

Going to unbutton three buttons now and walk around Forte.

[David Sacks]

Perfect. And Sacks, I will see you at the White House. J.D. and I will be in the commissary, so we'll invite you to lunch with us. My bestie, J.D.

[Jason Calacanis]

It'S called the Navy mess, actually.

[David Sacks]

In the mess. Yeah. And you know what? Ludnick's joining us as well. And who's our energy guy? Chris. Chris said he wanted to jump in on that so maybe you can join us. I'll invite you now that I am deep into the administration. Thank you for tuning in everybody. All in.com events. The scholarship tickets are up. So if you want to try to get one of the very few scholarship tickets, we always like our up and comers. Please. If you're. If you're of means, don't apply for the scholarship, you won't get it in. But if you're up and coming and you're part of the audience and you want to get one of those discounted tickets, we have a limited number of those events available online.com events. Love you besties. Bye bye.

[David Friedberg]

Love you guys.

[David Sacks]

Let your winners ride Rain Man David Sack.

[Jason Calacanis]

And instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

[David Sacks]

Love you Queen of quinoa. Besties are gone. 13. That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway. Oh man.

[David Friedberg]

My appet will meet me at.

[David Sacks]

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy.

[Jason Calacanis]

Because they're all just useless.

[David Friedberg]

It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

[David Sacks]

We need to get murdered.