Diet TBPN: November 6, 2025

Summary

TBPN Podcast Summary

Episode: Diet TBPN – November 6, 2025

Hosts: John Coogan & Jordi Hays
Release Date: November 7, 2025
Main Theme:
A deep dive into the controversy surrounding OpenAI's call for a potential federal backstop on AI chip investments, sparking debate over government intervention in tech, moral hazard, and US competitiveness in the AI race—especially vis-à-vis China. The hosts unpack the meaning, implications, and response to high-profile statements from OpenAI, its CFO Sarah Fryer, and CEO Sam Altman.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. OpenAI’s “Federal Backstop” Comment (00:00 – 03:13)

• Context: Sarah Fryer (OpenAI CFO) suggests at a WSJ event that OpenAI and similar firms may need federal support—“a federal backstop”—to finance high-cost, state-of-the-art AI chips for continued US leadership.
• Fryer's Position:
  • “In order to do that, we always want to be on the frontier chip. So the question is, how long does a chip remain on the frontier? ... If the timeline on the chip stays short, that gets harder. And so this is where we’re looking for an ecosystem … The ways governments can come to bear, meaning like a federal subsidy or something.” (00:21–01:27)
• Hosts’ Reaction: The statement caused turmoil and led to speculation and parsing of what a “backstop” really means in this context.

2. Government Involvement in Large-Scale Tech (03:13 – 07:56)

• Comparisons:
  • Nuclear Industry: The US government insures nuclear power plants due to risk factors; is similar support inevitable in AI?
    • Sam Altman: “At some level, when something gets sufficiently huge... the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we’ve seen in various financial crises…” (03:34)
    • Cowen: “There’s a big difference between the government being the insurer of last resort and the insurer of first resort… And that I don’t want.” (04:08)
• Bubble Anxiety vs. Exuberance:
  • Fryer criticized the market for “not enough exuberance about AI”—the hosts note this optimism contrasts with the worries about excessive risk-taking and moral hazard.
  • “I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI… We should keep running at it.” – Sarah Fryer (04:23)

3. The “Backstop” Dilemma: Moral Hazard and Historical Precedent (05:15 – 11:06)

• 2008 Financial Crisis Parallel:
  • Hosts recall how government bailouts worked as a “lender of last resort” (06:10), but acknowledge the stigma of pre-baked bailouts creating moral hazard: “if you are identifying the backstop before you get into trouble, it creates this moral hazard.” (05:15)
  • "There's something that feels very moral hazard-y about the CFO ... telling everyone how the magic trick works. It is a problem if you say, I'm openly acknowledging the way the system works and I'm gonna push it to the limit." – John (06:26)
• When is a Backstop Acceptable?
  • Accepts general crisis interventions but is wary of programs that socialize losses: “Totally using the government to create what will ultimately just be an even greater crisis and ultimately just socializing the losses from all of this.” – Jordi (07:56)

4. Differentiating Bailouts, Backstops, and Strategic Investment (09:02 – 11:06)

• Tesla Example:
  • Government loans to Tesla are cited as a positive example where the government made money.
• Public Appetite:
  • “I just think there’s no public appetite for this. Look at the state of the average American… already worried I might get a job and then I might lose it to AI.” – Jordi (11:30)
• Altman’s Clarification:
  • Sam Altman tweets: “We do not, do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI data centers ... What we do think might make sense is government building and owning their own AI infrastructure … Building a strategic national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense.” (11:47)

5. The “AI Race” and Geopolitical Stakes: China vs. the US (12:49 – 14:14)

• Nvidia & China Stakes:
  • Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang: “China is going to win the AI race.” (12:49)
  • The US limits Nvidia chip sales to China; Huang argues for selling chips to keep China dependent on US hardware.
  • “His position is that … we want to get China dependent yep on on American AI infrastructure so that we can pull it back at any time. But saying they're about to win ... doesn't really sit [well].” – Jordi (12:49)
• Defining the “AI Race”:
  • How do you measure winning? More compute, better models, economic impact, or military capability?
  • “If AGI happens in 15 years, China is more likely to get it because they’re on a steeper energy ramp than we are.” – John (26:28)
• Strategic Reserve Proposal:
  • Building government-owned AI “compute reserves” is highlighted as distinct from bailing out private companies.

6. Industrial Policy: Fabs, Power Infrastructure, and the Application Layer (14:14 – 16:26)

• Hosts’ Consensus:
  • Both support government guarantees for semiconductor fabs or power infrastructure, but oppose application-layer subsidies:
    • “Keep the government out of the application layer, focus on the energy layer.” – John (15:56)
    • “But federal backstop so you can get more videos of your cat dressed up like a doctor. I don’t think people are going to be on board with that.” – Jordi (14:25)

7. OpenAI as a “Hyperscaler” & Competitive Pressures (16:26 – 17:02)

• Data Center Build-Out:
  • OpenAI’s need for government support is cast as a way to compete against cash-flush tech giants.
  • “OpenAI is a new hyperscaler ... They need every advantage they possibly can ... One way they could get an advantage is through programs like Sarah suggested and then walked back.” – Jordi (16:43)

8. Public Perception, Sentiment, and Backlash (17:02 – 21:03)

• Backstop “Optics”:
  • The term “backstop” connotes crisis and failure. “The idea of like federal backstop just immediately conjures massive failure... This is why traditionally CFOs are only allowed to speak fake accounting identities in public.” – John (17:02)
  • “If OpenAI blows up and investors are saved by the government, I would vote for Fidel Castro.” – Citing outside public sentiment (25:22)
• Infrastructure vs. Consumer Benefit:
  • Skepticism remains about positive spillover to the public from AI chip investments vs. support for broader infrastructure improvements (e.g., energy).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sarah Fryer’s Prompt:
  • “We always want to be on the frontier chip... The ways governments can come to bear, meaning like a federal subsidy or something. Meaning like just first of all, the backstop, the guarantee that allows the financing.” (00:21–01:27)
• Jordi Hays on Bubble Anxiety:
  • “We're in a global erotica race.” [Joking about the intensity and confusion in the AI race narrative] (02:05)
• Sam Altman on Backstops:
  • “At some level, when something gets sufficiently huge … the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort...” (03:34)
• Tyler Cowen on Risk:
  • “There’s a big difference between the government being the insurer of last resort and the insurer of first resort... And that I don't want.” (04:08)
• Public Backlash:
  • “If OpenAI blows up and investors are saved by the government, I would vote for Fidel Castro.” (25:22)
• On AI’s Value vs. Infrastructure:
  • “A backstop is what the Federal Reserve calls it when they have to save 20 banks from exploding...” (17:02)
  • “With a bunch of GPUs … they don’t stick around forever.” (17:56)

---

Highlighted Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:21–01:27 | Sarah Fryer’s explanation of the need for a government backstop on AI chips | | 03:34–04:23 | Sam Altman and Tyler Cowen discuss government as insurer of last/first resort | | 05:15–07:56 | Hosts analyze historical government interventions (2008, dotcom) and moral hazard | | 11:47–14:14 | Altman clarifies OpenAI’s position; the case for a government compute reserve | | 12:49–13:34 | Nvidia CEO Huang’s comments about China and the AI race | | 14:14–16:26 | Hosts discuss industrial policy: fabs and energy infrastructure | | 17:02–18:59 | Critique of backstop signaling, and the risks of regulatory capture | | 25:22 | Public backlash quote (“I would vote for Fidel Castro”) |

---

Conclusion & Tone

The episode is filled with fast-paced, nuanced, and at times sardonic debate about the appropriate line for government intervention in tech—balancing the need to support national strategic sectors like AI while avoiding the risks of moral hazard and public resentment. The hosts are skeptical of direct industry bailouts but offer support for strategic infrastructure (fabs, energy) where the public benefit is clear and broadly distributed. There’s consensus that the term "backstop" carries negative weight, both in financial markets and the public eye.

Throughout, the hosts maintain a conversational, analytical, and sometimes tongue-in-cheek tone—questioning establishment narratives, parsing recent tech news, and keeping their audience attuned both to Wall Street and Main Street sentiment around AI, Big Tech, and government policy.

Transcript

[A]

Wild time on the timeline yesterday with comments from OpenAI. OpenAI's finance chief, Sarah Fryer, she was at a Wall Street Journal event on Wednesday.

[B]

She put the timeline in turmoil.

[A]

She did put the timeline in turmoil. The headline from the Wall street journal was OpenAI wants federal backstop for new investments.

[C]

OpenAI, at our core are the model company that needs always to be the state of the art. That's what we've done time and time again. GPT5 is no exception. But even in areas like open source, we're attempting to put the state of the art model always out into the world. And in order to do that, we always want to be on the frontier chip. So the question is, how long does a chip remain on the frontier? Is it three years, four years, five years, or even longer? Now, in a world where we have no compute or compute constrained, we are absolutely using chips that have like a 100 equivalents that have been around like maybe six, seven years at this point in time. If that's the case, financing chips gets a lot easier. If the timeline on the chip stays short, that gets harder. And so this is where we're looking for an ecosystem of banks, private equity, maybe even governmental. The ways governments can come to bear meaning like a federal subsidy or something. Meaning like just first of all, the backstop, the guarantee that allows the financing.

[A]

It'S like a ton of bricks that.

[C]

Can really drop the cost of the financing but also increase the loan to value. So the amount of debt that you can take on top of an equity portion for some federal backstop for chip investing. Exactly. And I think we're seeing that. I think the US Government in particular has been incredibly forward leaning, has really understood that AI has is almost a national strategic asset and that we really need to be thoughtful when we think about competition with, for example, China. Are we doing all the right things to grow our AI ecosystem?

[B]

We're in a global erotica race.

[C]

Are you talking to the White House about how to further formalize that kind of backstop? We're always being brought in by the White House to give our point of view as an expert on what's happening in the sector for. For sure.

[A]

So on LinkedIn, Sarah Fryer said she wasn't asking for a backstop for OpenAI's investments. She was just making the point that American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part. Every comment, every sentence uttered by an OpenAI executive will be analyzed to death. It's one of my favorite Things to do. So that's exactly what we're going to do on this show. Should a federal backstop exist for large scale industrial projects, like when there's a lot of money floating around in the economy, should, should the government be ready to step in if things don't line up, if things don't pencil out? And so Sam Altman actually touched on a similar concept in his conversation with Tyler Cowen that was recorded, I think a few days ago, but also went live yesterday, which is just sort of crazy timing as you know, both you.

[D]

And I were fans of nuclear power, but we also know the insurance for nuclear power plants is provided by the government. The plants might be quite safe, but people worry. They're nervous Nellies. There's a lot of parties involved. So the federal government does the insurance. Do you worry that the future holds the same for AI companies where the Feds are your insurer?

[E]

At some level, when something gets sufficiently huge, whether or not they are on paper, the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises and insurance companies screwing things up. So I guess given the magnitude of what I expect AI economic impact to look like, sort of. I do think the government ends up as like the insurer of last resort, but I think I mean that in a different way than you mean that. And I don't expect them to actually be like writing the policies in the way that maybe they do for nuclear.

[D]

And there's a big difference between the government being the insurer of last resort and the insurer of first resort. Last resort's inevitable, but I'm worried they'll become the insurer of first resort. And that I don't want.

[E]

I don't want that either. It's not, I don't, I don't think that's what will happen.

[B]

Let me give some more context here in that, that same day, that same interview, OpenAI CFO Sarah Fryer suggested the market is overly focused about, on anxiety about a possible bubble in artificial intelligence and should muster more exuberance about the technology's potential. Quote, I don't think there's enough exuberance about AI when I about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individuals. We should keep running at it. You know, Friday, everyone saw the interview with, with Sam and Brad. Brad asks a very simple question that's on everyone's minds. Sam basically doesn't answer the question. Nobody heard his response and thought, okay, I'm confident. And so to go into that, and then Say in this interview, the market is not exuberant enough. She can go out and say that she takes it back or that she didn't mean it to come across in the way that it did. But in the moment, agreed with the interviewer's point.

[A]

I feel like it is true that there is a government backstop. Whenever there's $1 trillion of spend going on, there is a de facto backstop. Like this happened in 2008. There was a global financial crisis. Banks were leveraged on housing. The government came in and acted as the lender of last resort. In that moment, it was the rational thing to do. Now, the problem is that if you are identifying the backstop before you get into trouble, it creates this moral hazard. And that's why people were so upset with Wall Street. I don't see. I actually don't see a problem with the government behaving like it always has. I don't have a problem with that. I'm fine with a backstop and I wouldn't change anything about the way the government works. And I'm serious about that. I think that the alternative is actually worse. I think the alternative, if you go back to 2008 and you say, okay, let's not bail out the banks, I think that you just extend the recession.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, but if in 2005, yeah, the banks and various players were saying, we're going to do a bunch of super risky lending that we're not sure is going to pencil out. And we just want to know that if, if things get really bad, you'll be there to bail us out, but we're going to make a ton of money in the process.

[A]

My conclusion in my post today was America has a playbook for backstops. I don't think Sarah Fryer or anyone at OpenAI is asking to rewrite the playbook, but there's something that feels very moral hazardy about the CFO of the most important company at the center of a massive economic wave, sort of telling everyone how the magic trick works. It is a problem if you say, I'm openly acknowledging the way the system works and I'm gonna push it to the limit. That's a little bit rough.

[B]

The AB test of like 2008, you can kind of say is like Great Depression, where there's this big critique where people were bas mad that there wasn't stimulus earlier.

[A]

Totally.

[B]

And then basically by not doing stimulus, you drag out the Depression like way longer than it should have.

[A]

Totally. I mean, it was the foundation of the Keynesian Economic model like this idea that it is actually advantageous to spend. I like the backstop more than we're going to try and pick a winner and do a specific project. What was the backstop in dotcom? Do you know what they did as a result of dotcom?

[B]

No.

[A]

Like, they didn't go in and say, oh, you're in pets.com, we're making you whole. What they did was they said, there's a recession right now. We need to lower interest rates, we need to cut taxes a little bit. We need to just stimulate the economy just a little bit to get back on our feet and just start up the economic engine.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So they did tax cuts and lower interest rates and that is a backstop. And I'm fine with that. I think that's fine if the AI bubble pops and the end result is that we get lower interest rates and some tax cuts and like very different.

[B]

Than various players wanting to develop data centers and lenders feeling uncomfortable about not having clarity on are these chips going to be worth anything in six years? Are they going to be worth anything in five years? Are they going to be useless after a few years? When I hear these comments from Sarah Fryer, what I'm hearing is we have a bunch of lenders that would happily finance this if there's a government guarantee that they won't lose money. And that's very different. If you get some type of setup where the government does come in and say, not just for OpenAI, but for a variety of these players, like, yeah, we will provide a backstop. Yeah, the lenders start to feel comfortable, they start to lend. What's the lender's incentive? If a lender makes money, when they lend money and they have some type of structure where they can't lose money, what are they going to do? That's lend as much money as they possibly can. Looking back through, you know, 0708 and the example you gave around post.com crash, I'm not against government intervention during a crisis. Totally using the government to create what will ultimately just be an even greater crisis and ultimately just socializing the losses from all of this.

[A]

And yeah, Tesla, government backstop, right. Gave loans, paid back the loans. Tesla paid back the loans with interest. The taxpayer made money on that. And anyone who says, oh, Elon only, you know, he's just, the government pays for everything. That's. It's like they're wrong. The government made investment in Tesla and they got back money with interest. And so the government participating in private markets it doesn't always end poorly. Sam is not asking for the government to take a position. He's like, I don't want to be intel. I don't want them on my cap table. I don't want any of that. It's like, sure. So honestly, I don't know. I don't know what they're asking for because it is a crazy, crazy piece of comms to say to, to even talk about it in the current zeitgeist.

[B]

And you know, the general public already hates AI enough. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I would expect that something like this does happen.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, that's why David Sachs came out and said like, there will be no federal bailout for AI. The US has at least five major frontier model companies. If one fails, others will take its place.

[B]

The AI race looked more clearly like China designing AI weapons.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And OpenAI is purely a defense tech player that is also developing AI weapons. And in order to be competitive, in order to not have the ccp, you know, take full control over the world with their sort of dark super intelligence, we needed a national champion national lab. We needed to give them as much infrastructure, as much energy, all these things. That scenario I'd be looking at this a lot differently.

[A]

I think literally me, you, Sarah Fryer, David Sachs, we're all in agreement here that no one's saying OpenAI gets a bailout if the company doesn't do well.

[B]

But no one's saying that. But I think it's important to like, yeah, break these out. A bailout is like, OpenAI is going to default.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And they need a capital injection in order to stay solvent. And David Sacks was clear, we're not going to have a bailout. But. But a backstop of loans. I would expect that to happen.

[A]

I guess the bigger question is like, should America vote actually socializing the losses of the AI build out? Like, if you don't like AI, then you're like, no, there's no point. But if you think it's like the railroad or you think it's like the Internet infrastructure buildout, or you think it's like the computing revolution, then you should be all in on that. On like, yes, put the weight of the US government behind this project.

[B]

I just think there's no public appetite for this. Look at the state of the average American.

[A]

I think you're right.

[B]

They can't afford a home. They can't even afford McDonald's. They're already worried I might get a job and then I might lose it to AI.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

You have people working in AI that are already talking about job displacement.

[A]

We've been breaking news. Sama has tweeted addressing the backstop. I would like to clarify a few things. First the obvious one. We do not do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI data centers. We believe that governments should not pick winners or losers and that taxpayers should not bail out companies that make bad business decisions or otherwise lose in the market. If one company fails, other companies will do good work. What we do think might make sense is government building and owning their own AI infrastructure go code. Then the upside of that should flow to the government as well. We can imagine a world where governments decide to take to off take a lot of computing power and get to decide how to use it. And it may make sense to provide lower cost of capital to do so. Building a strategic national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense. If you believe in the lore of AI 2027 this is trust the plan. Jensen Huang was in the Financial Times talking about the the China will win AI race with America. Says Nvidia chief.

[B]

He's like China's gonna win the AI race. We need to sell them as many chips as we possibly can right now. Please. They're gonna win. His position is that we want to get China dependent yep on on American AI infrastructure so that we can pull it back at any time. But saying they're about to win the AI race when he's also advocating for selling them as many as many chips as as they can produce doesn't really sit sit that we need to better define what the AI AI race is like. Gurley earlier this year I think made some good points like what is the AI race? How does one win? What does that look like? What does it look like in the.

[A]

Near term if your API pillar It's the race to a super intelligence a system that can do any economic work.

[B]

And the reason that people don't take that narrative super seriously right now is that companies like OpenAI make short form social media apps.

[A]

Well then the question is if we not getting 10x the results, do we need to be spending 10x as much next year? What we do think might make sense is the government building their own AI infrastructure. The project is going to happen. Building a strategic national reserve computing power makes a lot of sense but this should be for the government's benefit, not the benefit of private companies. The one area where we have discussed loan guarantees is as part of supporting the build out of semiconductor fabs in the United States. I completely agree with this, I'm pro all of it. When it comes to building semiconductor fabs.

[B]

In the United States, a bit more negative. I'm pro build that. I think the power side is an area that could make a lot more sense.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That could benefit the average American a lot more.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which is like, hey, the government is going to help finance, bring a lot more power online and we're going to be, stay, be able to stay at the, at the leading edge in AI. Lead in AI and your power bill. We're actually going to make your power bill cheaper over time. That's something that people could, could get behind. But federal backstop so you can get more videos of your cat dressed up like a doctor. I don't think people are going to be on board with that. I think it's very unclear to me how building just a national reserve of computing power makes a lot of sense. New consumer devices and robotics excited about that. I think it's hard for them to lean on those. Right. Because when I look at the history of big tech companies launching ambitious products, oftentimes they either flop entirely or lose money for a long time. So new consumer devices. So Zuck has been doing this right and just been like literally just lighting money on fire for years now you're saying we are looking at about 1.4 trillion of commitments over the next eight years and you're saying that part of our solution to delivering on this is new consumer electronics. I personally, I don't lean on that too hard. None of these things scream cash flow to me. These to me seem very likely like businesses, new business lines that also lose money. I'm excited about these categories. I think they're going to make cool, novel products, but it doesn't give me more confidence that they can meet those commitments.

[A]

Keep the government out of the application layer, focus on the energy layer. Just, just work on driving down energy prices and let all the tech companies duke it out and they will be beneficiaries of cheaper energy. But I want tons of American jobs building everything from natural gas to that solar plant. I want 10 of those and I want it staffed by Americans. How about that?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm on board with that.

[A]

We could agree with that.

[B]

The other thing is we are also looking for ways to more directly sell compute capacity to other companies and people. And so when I look at this, when you're simultaneously saying we're so compute constrained that they're making the AI lazy and they're not launching new features.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

To me, this just again this just says like, OpenAI is a new hyperscaler. And it's so hard to compete with the hyperscalers that have huge amounts of cash flow that they need every advantage that they possibly can. Right. And one way they could get an advantage is through programs like Sarah suggested and then walked back.

[A]

The timeline continues to be in turmoil. If OpenAI were to fail, it would have zero impact on the future of AI.0. He says they have a dozen viable competitors and 10 folks who would buy the assets. Let it rise or fall based on merit. Like the fact that this is the reaction to that quote is like so crazy. The idea of like federal backstop just immediately conjures massive failure and it just puts your company and failure right next to each other so very, very rough. Very rough. This is why traditionally CFOs are only allowed to speak fake accounting identities in public. Backstop is what the Federal Reserve calls it when they have to save 20 banks from exploding in a global financial crisis. The word you were looking for, Sarah, was partnership. I'm actually more pro backstop than partnership because I don't love the idea of the government picking winners in any particular layer stack. But partnership just sounds so much more positive than backstop. It just conjures up financial crisis. It just feels like, like major layoffs, recession, stock market sell off as soon as you start talking about, about backstop. So a huge amount of the money being spent on AI has gone to GPUs, particularly Nvidia, rocketing the fabless design company to a nearly $5 trillion valuation and the title of most valuable company in the world. The problem from the, the Carlota Perez perspective is that all of this spending on chips is relative to the sort of infrastructure she wrote about. Railroads, factories, fiber, short lived. If there's a bubble in railroads and we're like, we think railroads are going to unlock 5% GDP growth. It's amazing. And then you build all the railroads. Like the worst case scenario is you end up with a bunch of rails. You can still put cars on them, like they still work, but with a bunch of GPUs that like depreciate and get useless and they break. Like they don't stick around forever.

[B]

Good thing, John, is we're going to find out.

[A]

We're going to find out right now.

[B]

We're effing around right now. Fryer is describing a worse form of regulatory capture than anything we have seen proposed in any US legislation. I am aware of a firm lobbying for this outcome is literally, rather than impressionistically lobbying for regulatory capture. And this is going back to what I was saying before. If there is some type of program where the government, government is guaranteeing loans made for certain data center projects, like anybody will just get to be in that program. I'm with Dean Ball on this one and you know Sarah and the team have walked it back but they said it.

[A]

Yeah. David Sacks said there will be no federal bailout for AI. But he did address your comment, Tyler. He said that said, we do want to make permitting and power generation easier. The goal is rapid infrastructure buildout without increasing residential rates for electricity. Let's hear for that.

[B]

Nvidia down almost 8% over the last five days. Bunch of other names are down a ridiculous amount. Duolingo is down 30%.

[A]

Snap is up right.

[B]

Carmax down 18%. HubSpot down 18% wow. DoorDash down 15% crazy sell off. What's been notable this week? Companies are selling off after an earnings beat. Palantir down 10.7% the past five days.

[A]

Whether you're going long or you're going short, do it on public.com that's right. Investing for those that take it seriously, they got multi asset investing industry leading yields. They're trusted by millions. Snap shares surged after the company announced a $400 million partnership with Perplexity to incorporate AI powered search engine into Snapchat. The deal gives Snap a new business line and puts the social media company squarely into the mix around AI chatbots.

[B]

Why is Snap not monetizing their almost half a billion daus of young people and this is a great way for them to do it.

[A]

477 million DAUs in the third quarter for Snap, an 8% jump from a year ago. So they're still growing. The company also reported 943 million monthly active users. So they're almost at a billion MAUs and half a billion DAUs, which is.

[B]

Remarkable wild that Snap has almost a billion monthly actives and is valued substantially less than Perplexity.

[A]

It was kind of odd that Snapchat didn't have a dance partner on the AI side since every other major social media platform is kind of bolted onto a lab at this point. XAI and X are obviously the most prominent example, but even like LinkedIn and Microsoft and I don't think the US government should backstop data center loans or funnel money to Nvidia's 90% gross margin business. Instead they should make it really easy to produce energy with subsidies and better rules infrastructure that's beneficial for all and puts us at parity with China. Wow. This is an example of a person who's not into AI. Danny, with 142 followers here saying, build your own effing energy sources. Stop being parasites on the grid. The way the grid is set up, the way the US economy is set up is not like we don't build separate grids for each use case. Like, we didn't build a separate grid for Netflix. Some people might say that hospitals deserve better access to electricity than Netflix, right? Like, do we really need Netflix? Like, is that life or death? No. This idea of the government putting the thumb on the scale of and basically doing away with like what is effectively net neutrality or grid neutrality is super, super alluring to people right now that people are going to say why are my rates going up for the thing I don't like? It's kind of always been that way, you know, why are airline ticket prices going up? Because people are ordering things that are shipping by air. Like that happens.

[B]

What is the case against bailouts if winning the AI race against China is existential? I'm not actually making this argument or have this view necessarily, but public money backstops bailouts seem like the natural endpoint of how AI is discussed at these levels.

[A]

If winning the AI race against China is existential, America in every company should do everything possible.

[B]

Feel like I should. I should read through a little bit of this FT article about Jensen saying China will win the AI race with the US in the starkest comments yet from the head of the world's most valuable company, Huang told the Financial Times, china is going to win the AI race. Huang's remarks come after the Trump administration maintained a ban on California based Nvidia selling its most advanced chips to Beijing. Following a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi last week, the Nvidia chief said that the west, including the US and the uk, was being held back by cynicism and we need more optimism. Huang had previously warned that the latest American AI models were not far ahead of their Chinese rivals, urging the US Government to open up the market to its chips to keep the rest of the world dependent on its technology. But following his meeting with Xi, Trump said last week that he did not want to let China use Nvidia's cutting edge Blackwell chips, the most advanced. We will not let anybody have them other than the United States.

[A]

We still want, we want a fair fight, we want a free market. We want everyone who wants to buy chips can buy them and then it's still a race. Like everyone gets a pair of cleats and then you have to actually race. And so what are you racing on? You're racing on ingenuity. You're racing on ability to actually build things effectively.

[B]

We know from history that even if we give China chips, they will still spend as much as they need to in order to catch up themselves.

[A]

I don't know. I do think that there's. I do think that you can put supply pressure on the Chinese system.

[B]

Sure, maybe, Yeah, a little bit. Maybe you could slow it down a little.

[A]

I mean, they've been investing in semiconductors for years, right?

[B]

How many five year plans?

[A]

Yeah, they're going to continue to do that. There is some level of an acceptable argument to this idea that if you continue to push Nvidia chips there, it just makes the Huawei ascend just a little bit less exciting.

[B]

This post, I think is pretty reflective of general sentiment, specifically outside of the tech industry from Elliot. He says, if OpenAI blows up and investors are saved by the government, I would vote for Fidel Castro. This is not what Sarah Fryer was proposing. Right. But, but it is, it is a funny.

[A]

Yeah, people are not, not into it. There's also a little bit of cognitive dissonance there too. If the products are just tech products. No one was really upset that, that Uber and Facebook and Google were trying to sell their products into China. The whole reason why it became like, don't sell AI to China was because it was like, AI so valuable, it's so powerful. If you don't believe AI is super powerful, then you should maybe be okay with selling it to China.

[B]

The timing of Jensen coming out and saying China's going to win the AI race and not even clarifying what that means. Right. Are they going to build more, better data centers faster? Are they going to have better models? Are they going to unleash superintelligent?

[A]

I mean, you've seen at the same.

[B]

Time, because I assume Trump will see this quote and he's going to say, I don't want to lose to China on anything.

[A]

If AGI happens in 15 years, China is more likely to get it because they're on a steeper energy ramp than we are. But if AGI happens sooner and it is just sort of an algorithmic breakthrough, like we do have an advantage in America because we have more data centers right now. If you want to get President Donald Trump's attention around energy regulation, this is a pretty good headline. You want to say, hey, let's drive down energy costs in America. Make it about geopolitics, why not do you have a problem with that?

[B]

Making it about geopolitics pretty effective. Sam Altman snaps at Brad Friday. Michael Burry shorts. Alex Karp crashes out on tv. I didn't think that was that much. I didn't. It just seemed like a pretty normal carp interview.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I saw a little bit of CNBC.

[B]

He was like, maybe slightly more annoyed. DoorDash Mrs. OpenAI CFO floats a bailout. Not quite accurate. Floats a backstop, maybe, and then takes it back. McDonald's is for the upper class. Did you see this? No. Lower income consumption at McDonald's is declining, which is concerning.

[A]

That's not great. Tesla shareholders approve Elon Musk's $1 trillion pay package. For reference, it received 75% of the vote. The $1 trillion stock award is tied to business goals. It nets Musk 878 billion.

[B]

I guess this also allows him to have, I think, 20% of the voting power at 25% of the voting power at Tesla, which is something he's talked about publicly around, you know, building this robot army and wanting to make sure that he can't be, you know, terminated for political reasons or other reasons. We hope you have a wonderful evening.

[A]

Goodbye.

[B]

Cheers.