Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:00]
Jason
It's been three years since ChatGPT launched. I wanted to reflect a little bit. Everything changed, or maybe nothing changed, or maybe some amount of change in between everything and nothing. You're more on the nothing changed camp. I sort of agree with you. I was sort of reflecting on, like, okay, Thanksgiving's happened. It was Thanksgiving over the weekend. You know, how different is my world? Like, there's not a humanoid robot that's cooking for me. And also, even if we had a humanoid robot, I think that would. I think Thanksgiving would be the day we let the robot sit in the closet because we enjoy. No, let us cook. We enjoy cooking.
- [00:34]
David
Let us cook.
- [00:34]
Jason
Thanksgiving is like the track day of cooking. Like, even if you have the robot that does it, you still want to do it on Thanksgiving. You don't want to cook on a random Tuesday. I was reflecting more on the agentic commerce thing. It feels like ChatGPT and OpenAI, they really are pushing to make revenue from agentic commerce, like, in this holiday season. Incredible speed of execution. Like, clearly it's a big opportunity if you can figure out how to, you know, run ads. Commerce, convert. Take a cut of that. That's big. The actual product in ChatGPT is pretty good, but you can see that the walled gardens are already going up. So one place that I like to go to for reviews of products specifically around the holidays is the wire cutter. Now the wirecutter. Their whole twist was they wouldn't rate each product. What they would do is they would pick a category and then they would just tell you what their best product was in that category. Sort of like a cluster max of vacuums. So they would give you the platinum tier vacuum and then a budget pick. They were acquired by the New York Times. The New York Times is currently in a lawsuit with OpenAI. And so if you go to ChatGPT.
- [01:37]
David
And say, hey, and I think they're about to be in a lawsuit with David Sacks, maybe.
- [01:40]
Jason
But if you go. So I went to ChatGPT and I was like, hey, okay, pull a deep research report. Just pull everything from the wire cutter and. And tell me every category and every product that's top ranked. But it couldn't do it. It couldn't do it. It said, hey, we don't. We can't touch the wire cutter. Like, it's off limits. You got to head over there yourself, pop open a Chrome tab, brother. If you want to get over there, like, that's on you. The one thing that did really change on Thanksgiving was the discourse. The AI narrative has Fully arrived to just family and friends.
- [02:10]
David
You mean family in the home?
- [02:12]
Jason
Yes, yes. In people that don't work in technology that don't. Their job is not showing off their favorite trough. Not that more talking about. Is it a bubble? Where do you think all this stuff goes? The stuff that we've been talking about?
- [02:25]
David
Make sure you're not living in a bubble. You think the average family in America is?
- [02:30]
Jason
I saw multiple newsletters where the whole conceit of the newsletter going into the holidays was how to talk to your family about the AI bubble and how to talk to your family about AI generally. And I think it's real because if you've been watching your 401k over the last year, you've seen a massive spike and then a recent sell off. And if you've turned on any news or opened up any newspaper, you've been hearing about $1 trillion and you're like, what? A trillion dollars? That ChatGPT app, they need a trillion dollars to make that thing work. Chat. Right, Chat. I wanted to reflect on, like, what has actually changed over the last three years and specifically in the Mag 7. The Mag 7 has been on absolute tear. Just over the last three years, the value as a whole has basically tripled. It was a little under $8 trillion. Now it's over $21 trillion. It's a lot of value created in the last three years. Nvidia was second to last in the max in the mag 7. When ChatGPT launched, it was worth just $420 billion. Something on there. Today the stock is up over 10x. Basically it's $4.36 trillion and up today and up today.
- [03:38]
David
Despite all the chaos, Dylan Patel was.
- [03:40]
Jason
Trying so hard to bring that stock down, but he couldn't do it. I do think that The Nvidia, the 10X that's happened, has really created some crazy zealots and just an entire industrial complex because there are so many people who put, who heard AI. They tried the ChatGPT thing and they were like, this is big. How do I get it on this? I can't buy OpenAI. OpenAI is running away with it. Oh, they need Nvidia chips. That's the logical next step. They went in Nvidia and they got a 10X and they could have gotten a 10X on like a million dollars. $10 million.
- [04:14]
David
SIKI CHEN from Runway was saying that back. I think it was 2020, 2021. He, he said he put an uncomfortable amount of his net worth into Nvidia.
- [04:22]
Jason
And obviously and near cyan. Same story, right?
- [04:28]
David
Still underappreciated. The Nvidia 10 year fund. All it does is buy Nvidia just by investing in it. You can't possibly sell God's chosen company. Yes, that's what the I think title of the fund was.
- [04:40]
Jason
Oh really? Yeah, that's hilarious. Previously the world's largest company in November of 2022 was Apple and at the time they had a sizable lead over Microsoft, Amazon and Google. Now that gap has closed a bit as the hyperscalers have grown more over the last three years on the back of the AI boom. And it's interesting, I mean you can sort the mag7 by market cap and today you get the following ranking. Tesla, then Meta, then Amazon, Microsoft Alphabet, Apple and then Nvidia at the top. And the big question, I think that's on everyone's mind and kind of underpins the horse race that we cover every day on this show. What will that ranking look like in the next three years? Is Nvidia really a monopoly? Is it, is it impervious to attacks from the, from you know, different suppliers?
- [05:27]
David
What does Broadcom have to do to get into the Mag 7?
- [05:30]
Jason
There's also just like a bit of branding like some of the companies that made it into the Mag 7 were. I feel like the Mag 7 leaned understandable, like not that deep in the supply chain even Nvidia was the deepest. Nvidia had the least of like a consumer brand. But still a lot of people use the gaming graphic, gaming graphics cards. Broadcom is really tricky because there's no consumer angle whatsoever. Consumers can buy Tesla, they can use Meta products, they can buy on Amazon, have a Microsoft operating system, they can use Google, they can have an iPhone and they can have an Nvidia gaming graphics card.
- [06:05]
David
The top and then also Tesla sitting at 10, TSMC at 9, 8 is Saudi Aramco 7 meta. And then 6 is.
- [06:12]
Jason
I also think you have to be an American company to be in this Mag seven or whatever the hot ranking is. Like Fang Fang did not include, never included oil companies, never included international companies because if you go there then you could be like oh well let's include like the Chinese tobacco company that's worth a trillion dollars or something like that. Like there are some crazy, there's some crazy like foreign owned companies that are, if they were independent might be worth a trillion dollars because they just have so much true Monopoly. Yeah, exactly. But it doesn't really count because it's just sitting there out in the, out in the Ether Gemini App downloads are catching up to ChatGPT and Gemini users now spend more time in the app than ChatGPT users. People are going back and forth on can Gemini catch up? The model clearly very good. The big bombshell in the semianalysis piece over the weekend, this idea that OpenAI has not done a proper pre train since 4.0 and the 4.5 pre train kind of got mothballed. There was this question about, like, is pre training dead? Seems like the Google folks said, no, it's not. And then they went and did a pre train and Gemini 3 outperformed anthropic. Also pre trained.
- [07:20]
David
I mean, yeah, pre trained.
- [07:21]
Jason
Pilled.
- [07:21]
David
I mean, we asked Sholto about this and he said, oh, yeah, we're still bullish on scaling.
- [07:25]
Jason
I feel like there's still. There's still juice in the lemon of pre training, but it's not scale. Like, we only have one Internet. Ilya was correct about that. I think the thing that no one is debating is the fact that the Gemini 3 as a model with Nano Banana Pro, with VO3 is just like the actual foundational intelligence is plenty good to be dominant in the consumer AI category. The question is, can you actually get people to install the app, use it, can they enjoy it? Do they not churn and go back to ChatGPT? It's a really. It's a sprint to actually create an app that is as sticky as ChatGPT, because ChatGPT, the app is fantastic and very, very, very well designed. I would, I would much more look at, like, what are the structural advantages that we know? And I mean, with Gemini, one of them is, to that point, about the wire cutter. You know, where the wire cutter shows up Google search results. You know what company has one bot for scraping everything? Google. So the Google bot identifies as one entity. So you can either say, I'm allowing Google or not. And it's a big. It's a tall order to be like, yeah, I don't want to be in Google results.
- [08:38]
David
A funny Gemini integration that I've used is that you land in a. In a hangout and you just say, who is this person?
- [08:45]
Jason
Is this real? You can actually do that?
- [08:47]
David
It is. It pulls up a sidebar. You can just ask like, who. Who am I meeting with right now? And it'll give you like a.
- [08:53]
Jason
It's clearly, who am I meeting with? What should I say? What should I say to them? I asked them, what is my name? What. What do they want to know about me? What should I tell them about me? David Sacks is Going to war with the New York Times. He says inside the NYT's hoax factory calls it a hoax factory because the New York Times posted a piece about David Sacks saying that the headline was Silicon Valley's man in the White House is benefiting himself and his friends, he says. Five months ago, the five New York Times reporters were dispatched to create a story about my supposed conflicts of interest working as the White House AI and crypto czar. Through a series of fact checks they revealed their accusations. Accusations which we debunked in detail. Not surprisingly, they the published article included only bits and pieces. Our responses. Their accusations ranged from a fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO to non existent promises of access to the President, to baseless claims of influencing defense contracts. Every time we would prove an accusation false, NYT pivoted to the next allegation. This is why the story has dragged on for five months. Today they evidently just threw up their hands and published this nothing burger. Anyone who reads the story carefully can see that they strung together a bunch of anecdotes that don't support the headline. And of course that was the whole point. Well, people have been supportive of this broadly in tech. Let's go through some of the reaction. Sam Altman says David Sacks really understands AI and cares about the US leading in innovation. I'm grateful we have him.
- [10:26]
David
Here's my takeaway. If you believe that AI and crypto are industries that we should support in the United States, then you want to have a czar focused on those things that generally feels positively about those things. I think that there's actually a debate on both fronts. Right. Like there's people on the left that think AI and crypto are just default bad, they want less of them. And there's people on the right that believe that too. I think that ultimately there's arguments for why the US should bleed in stablecoins, which is part of why the genius act is important. And a lot of the AI action plan. There's going to be debates on individual points in that. But in general, I think creating an environment in the US where we can continue to lead in AI is important. I didn't see any sort of smoking, smoking gun in any of this stuff. There were some allegations around, around the.
- [11:29]
Jason
I don't think they smoke very much at all. I think it's mostly tequila drinking.
- [11:32]
David
That's true. All in tequila.
- [11:34]
Jason
I didn't see anything very specific. I mean it's, it's, it's all in like they're, they are super connected. If you Partner with them in some ways, like, you would expect to get more of a read on where they're spending time in D.C. what they're seeing. That seems like there are clear lines on what you can share, like what, what turns you into a lobbying firm and what doesn't. I don't know, David Sacks, but I want more expertise in government. Experts tend to have made money in their area of expertise, have friends in their area of expertise. If our people, if people can't have history or friends in a field before leading it, then our leaders won't know anything. And I thought this is a good distillation of, like, the core debate about, like, should you have someone who has never participated in an industry overseeing it?
- [12:23]
David
And I believe there's some readers and probably people at the New York Times that would like somebody that hasn't participated in either industry to be running in a role like that and just blanket against both industries and sort of like, hold them back.
- [12:36]
Jason
So Alex says the construct you're thinking of is called a council. It's been used for a long time to allow the elected with limited knowledge on a domain to get a consensus of options from a range of experts. This minimizes conflicts and prevents kleptocracy. Isn't that what a czar is? I thought, I thought Sachs was a counsel. He's not an elected official. The elected official is Donald Trump, the president. And like, there's a variety of folks there. And then, and then Sachs is like, appointed to this czar role. He doesn't have the ability to just like, create legislation out of thin air. Right.
- [13:08]
David
I was trying to look up the history of czars. Right.
- [13:11]
Jason
It is weird. Like, have we always had czars? I know there was a whole thing.
- [13:14]
David
About border czar Czar was Bernard Barak appointed by President Woodrow Wilson to head the War Industries Board in 1918. The press dubbed him the industry czar because he had sweeping powers to coordinate wartime production. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed several czars to manage the massive wartime economy, including a shipping czar and a synthetic rubber czar.
- [13:39]
Jason
These roles were synthetic rubber czar.
- [13:42]
David
One of the most iconic people are stoked for that. People don't talk about the need for our ongoing need for synthetic rubber czar.
- [13:48]
Jason
No.
- [13:49]
David
These roles were essential because existing government bureaucracies were too slow to handle the urgent demands of total war. During the 1973 oil crisis, Nixon appointed William Simon as the energy czar to manage fuel shortages. Anyways, again, I think unless you're just blanket against these industries. It's hard to argue that you want somebody that doesn't have any expertise in said industries. If you're the average New York Times subscrib, this is probably they were probably like very excited by this story. All in Pod about to be an all timer after this article. Do you think it's possible that David and Jason coordinated to get this hit piece done to grow all in even further?
- [14:34]
Jason
The timeline truly is in turmoil over this. Lots of people are sending me the New York Times story on David Sacks outside of the all in sponsorship proposal, which feels oblivious at best, corrupt at worst. I'm not seeing much in there that's new, at least to those who've been following Dan Primak says as an aside, it's true that Saks Kraft still have a ton of AI investments. Thing is, all tech investments at this point are AI investments. It's kind of like Internet investments at this point. If you invest in tech startups, you de facto invest in AI startups. If anything, going deep into politics has been a net negative for all in at least in my opinion. We would be growing faster and wouldn't have lost some percentage of our left leaning audience if we'd stuck to tech markets, science, vc, et cetera. That's an interesting take. I still think that politics made it so important. It made it so big.
- [15:29]
David
Well, yeah, and it made the content polarizing. But I think that polarizing in media is good. You actually get more attention. Not necessarily good from all points of view, but good from a pure, just like reach.
- [15:44]
Jason
CNBC is bigger than Bloomberg by a pretty significant margin because Bloomberg's like extra wonky and CNBC is a little bit. I mean it's literally called consumer business News. Like that's what the C stands for, I believe. And then you have Fox, which is even more like Fox News is political and it's much bigger ratings than CNBC or Bloomberg. And then ESPN is like by far the biggest because it's like sports. Everyone loves sports.
- [16:08]
David
When my wife asks what we should eat for dinner but says no to my first two suggestions, we are back.
- [16:14]
Jason
To the age of research. I like it. And then when she asks what I want for dinner from Bay is Lord, the answer to that question will reveal itself. I think there will be lots of possible answers. Very true. It's a great, great new meme template. I like it. When my husband asks how many Amazon packages are still on the way, the answer to that question will reveal itself. I think there will be lots of possible answers, but I think that's actually true. Like if he creates, if he creates some new AI, like there's a bunch of different ways to monetize it. We know this is a. We know this is a fact. But of course, Ilya is now joining the ranks of Yann Lecun and Rich Sutton and Andre Karpathy of sort of industry legends that are more or less saying that scaling is over and LLMs are dead.
- [17:03]
David
Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end. Aw, you're sweet. Scaling is over and LLMs are a dead end. Hello, Human resources.
- [17:10]
Jason
Human resources. I love this meme template because it's like, yeah, Jan Lecun has been saying the same thing.
- [17:15]
David
He says, Jan says. For the record, my current BMI is 24.
- [17:20]
Jason
This guy rocks. And the timeline was in turmoil. Lots of people very, you know, upset with semianalysis Latest Post how dare you. How dare you take a. They took a swing at the king. They said tpuv7 google takes a swing at the king. King is of course Nvidia. They are asking, is this potentially the end of the cuda mote Anthropics. They're talking about anthropics. One gigawatt TPU purchase. The more TPU meta ssi xai OpenAI anthropic buy, the more GPU capex you save. And they're going into what the battle between TPU and the next generation GPU out of Nvidia will look like. This upsets some people. There's a lot of folks who are long Nvidia. Either they have invested in Nvidia, they made a lot of money in Nvidia, or their their whole business is tied to Nvidia or amd. Even in general, the response to this article was very positive, but there were some folks who were very upset by it.
- [18:22]
David
And on accounts that that put a noun and then capital as their name.
- [18:28]
Jason
Yes.
- [18:28]
David
And suddenly they're an expert on everything.
- [18:31]
Jason
Yes. Yes. Yeah, it was, it was a little odd seeing the credentialism come out from the anons because like, I don't think we should get in the two can play that game camp. It's a little bit rough. So a lot of people are going back and forth on can semianalysis be trusted? Because they're writing about Nvidia and Dylan, I think some people didn't understand that he was joking. Zephyr here has a post. Dylan is being tongue in cheek, but he's not wrong. Nvidia was extremely dominant for the last three years, as we saw in the stock. It's up 10x over the last three years. New competitors will cause a reduction in market share and margin compression. But TAM is big so revenue profits won't go down. 75% of GM is just unsustainable. Hyperscalers will also use the cheap TPUs threat to extract better deals from Jensen, Priority access for Rubin, Feynman or discounts on GPUs. Jensen called Altman and initiated the $10 billion deal after he saw the information about the information article about OpenAI testing TPUs. This is in reaction to that that that point about OpenAI hasn't even deployed TPUs yet and they've already saved 30%.
- [19:42]
David
Dylan speedrunning through all the learnings of sell side research industry capture, pissing off IR execs, gatekeeping info based on client tier difficulty scaling beyond single star analysts distorted MSN representation of your notes eventually spending too much time marketing versus researching amazing biz. Obviously Dylan would push back on a lot of this stuff. If you actually read through the entire article, there's nothing in the article should actually in this article should be that surprising because so much of the article is just referencing old semianalysis research. Part of I think the surprise here is just how much faster this conversation has really come to a head than people may have expected. At least like surface level on the timeline. I think people felt like the TPU threat was maybe like a 2026, 2027 con versus being like it's a part of these buying discussions right now and negotiations.
- [20:39]
Jason
The other buried lead in the article was of course about pre training. OpenAI's leading researchers have not completed a successful full scale pre training run that was broadly for a new frontier model since GPT 4.0 in May of 2024. Like if this was wrong, you would imagine that there would be a whole bunch of reactions from OpenAI people or like proxies or surrogates, right? People quote tweeting and be like that's just not true. Wow, something else is cooked. But the fact that I haven't seen anyone respond to this and say like oh this is wrong. Like we actually did. Not that, not that like that's the North Star for what the business is like. The business's job is to create profits, right? It's not to you know, complete successful full scale pre training runs. That's not the goal. That's just something that they might do in service of making a better model, making a better product. But ultimately it's whatever the customers want and if the customers are happy with 4.0 level base pre train and a bunch of reasoning on top. That's fine. Also, I mean it really, it does make me happy that we didn't go deeper into ranking people because the it does feel like when you create a list of tiers and rank a bunch of people, you're just creating a big bucket of enemies down at the bottom of like people who want you dead because you rank them low. My theory is that Meta deliberately leaked the story to the information about about acquiring Google's TPUs. For Meta, it's a classic risk free power play. The moment Jensen Huang reaches wind, catches wind of Meta using Google Silicon, Nvidia is likely to rush in with an investment. They might even be negotiating as we speak. This allows Meta to secure capital and shift from burning their own cash to potentially getting discounts or effectively buying Nvidia chips with Nvidia's own money. Plus, if they actually do secure Google TPUs, they solve their compute shortage. It covers all bases, but the issue.
- [22:28]
David
Is how many red flags would be waving if Jensen was like, yeah, we're investing $20 billion in Meta. We're very, very excited about Meta and owning a piece of.
- [22:40]
Jason
Yeah, that seems very, very odd.
- [22:42]
David
So he's in a position where I don't know what kind of leverage Jensen has in those conversations with Meta because he doesn't want a discount and it's not like OpenAI where he can just announce an investment or an anthropic, et cetera. So how does any type of like rebate actually happen is the question.
- [23:01]
Jason
So Clive Chan says, I keep seeing stuff about tpu. Has anything materially new happened? There's no evidence Google has ever trained Gemini on non TPU hardware. Going back to pre GPT models like BERT. TPUs predate Nvidia's own Tensor cores. Anthropic and Character and SSI and Midjourney have long used TPU's. I'd be surprised if Meta weren't looking at them. Nvidia's moat has never been deep for the big labs see OpenAI deciding it could do better than Cuda and investing in Triton and instead regularly edging out C U D N N on benchmarks. There's nothing magical or structural about any of this, just good engineers doing good work. TPUs are not that much more efficient than GPUs and small performance per watt difference are dwarfed by whether Meta has the right kernels and systems engineering talent to pull it off. Both Nvidia's and Google's moats are small and we are still at the point where individual good engineers can flip the entire balance. Why was this not priced in? This is all super old public info. I have a feeling that Clive Chan, who I guess is over at was it Tesla and then OpenAI is a little bit of like first time in the public markets. First time realizing that the people who trade this stuff are not necessarily like on the super inside of the labs, actually understanding the decisions that are being made inside the labs. Like it's a completely separate ecosystem. And that's why organizations like Semianalysis exist. Josh Kushner is partnering with OpenAI. We are excited to announce a strategic partnership between OpenAI and Thrive Holdings. Through our partnership, OpenAI will become an equity holder in holdings and collectively we will set out to deliver frontier technology to our customers. For decades, technology has transformed the world's largest industries. From the outside in. We believe the AI paradigm will be different in that some of the most profound transformations will now occur from the inside out. We view the businesses that we own and operate as the right reward system to build, test and improve industry specific products and models. The race is on. Is it inside out or outside in transformation? What's going to happen? These are the new fast takeoff, short timeline, long timeline. Are you an inside out guy or an outside in guy? This is going to be the defining debate over the next couple of days.
- [25:18]
David
Well said.
- [25:18]
Jason
So get ready to lock in. We'll be covering it here. We'll probably have some people on who are digging into this, investing in this, have long takes, short takes, who knows. But I want to get to the bottom of what this outside in versus inside out transformation will look like. You can feel the panic behind the urgency and intensity with which people are defending Nvidia. It feels visceral and quite intense. You can tell how much is riding on this. It makes a lot of sense.
- [25:45]
David
Thought it was notable. Pager duty has fallen to a $1.1 billion mark. Market cap at 500 million of ARR. So trading, they're not growing anymore. They're trading at 2.1x ARR. It's profitable according to Jason Lemkin over at Saster. So yeah, rough time out there if you're not growing regardless of the revenue scale. Two days ago we shared that Enron back. 11-29-2001 Nvidia replaced Enron in the S&P 500. I saw this post go out from our incredible team and I immediately googled to fax.
- [26:24]
Jason
I was like, there's no way. Someone has made a terrible mistake on our team and we are doing fake news unironically now. We used to have some fun, but apparently this is real. It's real, it's real.
- [26:35]
David
Nielsen was like, I'll take that spot November 29th.
- [26:39]
Jason
Obviously, that's not how it works. It is much more mathematical than that. I believe Standard and Poor's picks the largest companies and after certain ebbs and flows of the market, they swap folks in and out. But this went pretty viral. 5,000 likes. But what is really interesting is, of course, the Nvidia and Rod comparisons are just so silly to me. What is incredible is this branded shirt he's wearing. Look at this thing.
- [27:10]
David
Fantastic.
- [27:11]
Jason
So awesome. I love it.
- [27:12]
David
Not enough people trying to go snipe vintage Nvidia merch.
- [27:16]
Jason
It's a great shirt, it's a great look and I feel like it's gotta make a comeback. The button down. This is the pre Silicon Valley. I'm just in a T shirt era. But it's post suits. You know, it's like, we're not suits. We're working in technology. We're still gonna throw on a collar, but we're going to dress it down a little bit. No tie.
- [27:35]
David
Guys, scroll up. Scroll up on this for a second. Yeah, I'll keep going. Keep going. Oh, who's not. Who's not following? Tyler, you got to follow the account. No, this is not my account.
- [27:45]
Jason
I think this is a. This is more of like a burner account situation.
- [27:47]
David
Oh, it's a scraper that we use to. For the.
- [27:50]
Jason
It is. It is.
- [27:52]
David
You got to correct that. Tyler, come on. Oxford Dictionary didn't get the memo. Apparently Rage bait named. I think. I think it.
- [28:01]
Jason
No, no, no.
- [28:01]
David
I think they're actually right that it.
- [28:03]
Jason
Would be the word of the year. But it is so funny that you posted this and then. And then Oxford Dictionary.
- [28:10]
David
Yeah. So this is true rage. According to the BBC, Rage Bait named Oxford Word of the Year 2025. It certainly feels that way on the timeline.
- [28:19]
Jason
Your post. 1,000,000 views on this.
- [28:21]
David
And we will see you tomorrow.
- [28:22]
Jason
See you tomorrow. Cheers.