OpenAI Misses Targets, Codex vs Claude, Elon vs Sam Trial, Big Hyperscaler Beats, Peptide Craze

Jason, do you want to tell us about your new favorite podcast? Oh, it's so good. My feed is now because You know since cancel culture ended sacks Everybody uses the R word and the F word right now my entire feed on Instagram is either gay We're Down syndrome or bulldogs. It's one of those three and then ice stumbled upon the Miss thing pod Miss thing and they do a bit called gay name straightening here Gain him or straight name for David this good news and bad news free bird here we go Gain aim or straight name David David to me is straight Okay, but he has my perfect body it can be confusing because I'm kind of like Are you gay and it's like no, I just want to be you David totally well, it's so like the Michelangelo's David the male ideal It's like incredible body. Yeah, I'm just small. Sorry. Yeah. Oh It's a little rough Watching their J. Cal they basically nailed these two, but okay keep going I don't think Jamal is on their short list, but I know Jason will come up at some point gay name or straight maybe this is it Jam off On a three yeah Three two one I think like a Allian sweater like really kind of like a loud vibrant sweater to feel like wears into like poker night with his Like his voice and like not I'm not talking like straight poker. I'm talking like gay poker nights Like that's the water. Yeah, always talking about wine talks about wine always sort of like Swishy yet exactly. Yeah, also it's so like the guy at the gym taking off his shirt Yeah, and everyone else is kind of like excuse me Jamal. I'd like to use the mirror. Yeah, I'd like to see myself See you at the next day poker night Totally bring the wine We'll bring this sweater. Yeah, there is wow. They do do Jamal. That is fantastic. That is fantastic I shout out to my guys at the Miss Dang podcast. Wow. That was awesome. I think I'm gay We open source into the fans and they just go crazy love you guys What did you do like Camino? Did you pay them to do that did it for me as a favor? So I did that's awesome Well, thanks to those guys to the miss the I've seen those guys before in clips. I find them very funny Shout out to my guys. That was awesome. All right everybody seriously welcome back To the number one podcast in the world. It's the all-in podcast with me again David Freiburg Jamal pot of tea David sacks and of course I'm Jason Kalakana. She can call me Jake Hal if you're here for the first time topic one Open AI They missed their targets for chat GPT Freiburg both on users and revenue. Let's talk about it the Wall Street Journal says in a Breaking investigative report on Tuesday that open AI expected to hit one billion walls weekly active users before the end of 2025 they missed that and they still haven't hit the milestone four months into 2026 Also, Chimap they missed their 2025 revenue target for chat GPT exact number wasn't specified but as we've talked about here They're at a 2030 billion dollar run rate. There's a little bit of accounting nuance that is yet to be worked out in the industry two reasons why this matter sacks open AI has six hundred billion dollars in spending commitments for compute Just to put that in perspective That's about what they're trading for on secondary markets in other words the entire value of the open AI enterprise Equals their spend commitments in the coming year CFO Sarah Friar who is coming to liquidity is reportedly worried Hey, that revenue isn't growing and fast enough to keep up with expense and Open AI wants to IPO later this year. This is put prior and ottman in conflict or maybe there's some natural tension there Friar doesn't think open AI is ready for public reporting standards according to the Wall Street Journal Altman obviously wants to move faster so they released a joint statement. This is ridiculous. Yada yada Let's go to you sacks. What do you think is going on here? Are these major headwinds or is this just managing expectations as the leader of the pack in The most important race of our lifetimes the race towards super intelligence Well, I actually have a little bit of a contrarian take on this I know that open AI had a really bad week like you said they had that Wall Street Journal article Which said that they've missed their numbers they missed their one billion user growth target They missed a revenue numbers. That's called into question whether they can afford the data center commitments that they've made and Then in addition to that they've also had the lawsuit with with Elon happening this week So in the precedent of being I think a pretty bad week for them But I have a contrarian take on this which I think that over the past week or two if you look at kind of what's happening at the product level It's been a pretty good couple of weeks for them. They released chat Gbt 5.5 and the reviews From you know people I talked to in Silicon Valley have been really strong you talked to developers coders They're very happy with it at the same time Opus 4.7 which is the latest and thropic release appears to be a bus people are complaining about it There in a lot of cases are really back to 4.6 They're saying that opus 4.7 is rationing compute. It's reducing thinking time not as good. There were some bugs in clawed So if you just compare chat Gbt 5.5 to opus 4.7 It does appear that open AI has had a better couple of weeks at a product level and I think there's reasons to believe that The product improvements will continue Gbt 5.5 is based on a new base model called Spud which is the first base model upgrade they've done in I don't know over a year and Having a new base model will pave the way for future improvements as well So I think open AI is feeling pretty optimistic about the product right now and I think you're starting to see on X that some of the developer Mojo is shifting. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they are shifting their their coding usage from opus to Gbt 5.5 So I think that Sam may end up being right but for the wrong reason and What I mean by that is that when he made these big compute commitments It was based on those estimates of hitting the billion users on the consumer side and hitting those revenue targets The consumer business ended up being weak So they missed those targets But in the meantime coding has become the all-important sector of AI And because they made all these compute commitments and they built out these data centers They have more compute than an anthropic right now and the topic is token constraint is Reducing their ability to serve mythos for example. It's causing them to engage in computing with opus 4.7 And I understand why Dorio made that decision I'm not saying I mean it was a prudent business decision not criticizing him for it But I think again I think Sam may end up being right here for the wrong reason which is he missed on consumer But enterprise is going gangbusters and is giving him the ability now I think to catch up on Here's your polymarket which is the all-important market right now of course and we talked about GROC and cursor teaming up last week Heal on and the team over there polymarket showing now a 32% chance that open AI goes public by the end of 2026 this is down from 60% in December and Shemoth you gave a bit of a warning Hey, there's only so many dollars to go around space X IPO is obviously getting our first and now if Open AI doesn't go out this year and an anthropic does the sets up an interesting dynamic What are your thoughts here generally speaking about the massive commitment that open AI has made? Are they going to run off the cliff or will it wind up being brilliant? Even if it wasn't strategically for the exact reasons I think they're going to be fine. I think this is a multi trillion dollar company. I think anthropic is a multi trillion dollar company I think the thing that's happening right now is a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening Inside of the world of AI and there is one very specific choke point That is constraining everything which is access to the power that's necessary to drive these tokens To the extent that open AI missed I think what that is is an insight to not enough compute capacity today and That problem is only getting worse You've already seen that with anthropic as well where they just found a way to economically induce Amazon To give them enough capacity so that you don't have to route through bedrock to get to the anthropic models You're also seeing them do differentiated deals now with economic participation on top of what they already had from folks I Google to give them more capacity. What is my point? Everything in this market is power constrained The reason that these folks may miss a number or a forecast have nothing to do with demand It is entirely 100% due to the supply of the power necessary to generate the output token There is a really interesting thing that was just announced today that will make this problem even worse Which is what you're starting to see now is Backlogs build up Of not just the access to the power but the than the componentry that's actually necessary, not just resips and not just net gas turbines, but now you're talking about transformers and all the actual tactical grid infrastructure. Why is this important? If you look at the actual amount of gigawatts that are under construction, we have a huge mismatch now. People have announced all these projects, Jason, but less than half of it is actually being built, less than half. Most of it is stuck in red tape. Most of that is because they are the supply chain delays, so there's no credible strategy to turn any of this stuff on. Who will this hurt? It will hurt anthropic and open AI the most. Who will this benefit? It will benefit the hyperscalers, specifically Oracle, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google. And now what you're going to see is a negotiation and a trade back and forth. How much equity do I have to give up? How much control do I have to give up to get access to the compute versus how badly will I miss my growth forecasts if I don't? And now what that means is, and we spoke about the Sasui, that's a huge lane for GROC to just run through and SpaceX to run through, 'cause they have a ton of excess capacity. And so I think the cursor deal was the appetizer. But if I were Elon now, I'd be running all over this market, because if the models catch up in quality, I think he could also do something really crazy with anthropic or open AI right now. Maybe not open AI because of the-- - We'll get into the lawsuit in a moment. - The baggage? - Yeah. But man, he and Mario should do a deal tomorrow. So you're framing, hey, the limited resource here is compute. The demand is off the charts. No, the limiting resource is power. Power, which then powers compute, which then provides tokens, which then services the mapping developer and co-work in all these other projects that consumers and enterprises can't get enough of, got it. - And Jason, the other factor that complicates that for anthropic and open AI is all the stuff that's sort of sitting around thumb twiddling. 40% of that is gonna get canceled because they've done such a poor job of creating a good positive halo around AI, that 40% of all the announced projects get canceled because 40% of all projects in the last four years have been canceled. - Yeah, and there are some bad feelings about data centers, AI, jobs, et cetera. And that's causing some headwind. People are literally doing violent things in society and blaming data centers and AI for it. I don't wanna give it too much airtime freeberg. What you're taking on the chess board, we're looking at here either through compute, energy or through going public on a business level, the strategic nature of capital, compute, and energy now, playing a role in this massive amount of demand. - Still a ball in the air kinda game. BCG had this theory, I think I talked about this once before called the Rule of Three, where they've shown time and again that any stable mature competitive market evolves to a four to two to one ratio of market share for basically 90% of the market. So there's a market leader that has four times the market share of the second place, that's two times the market share of the third place. This is the case in pretty much every mature kind of competitive market. So you can kind of think about AI probably evolving into the consumer market and an enterprise market, open AI, even if they're not at a billion, there's still a 900 million weekly users, which is well ahead of whatever claw is at. I think claw is like probably sub 100 million, exactly you may know. And then Gemini's probably closer to them, it's 700 to a billion somewhere in that range, probably pretty neck and neck with open AI. So the consumer market looks like it's trending towards a chat GPT/Google fight for first place and second place and then probably anthropic and third place and maybe Elon emerges and takes off enabled by his compute capacity. And then the enterprise market is a little bit of a different story and that's its own market, which is kind of anthropic. Or probably Google in the lead actually, if you look at all the vertex use, Google claims that 75% of GCP customers are active users of vertex. So there's probably a pretty sizable market share that Google's captured on the enterprise side as well. This is also probably why Google stock has absolutely ripped over the last couple of months. Because they're literally in first place or fighting for first place in enterprise and consumer. But I still think that there's a lot of opportunity to Chimoff's point about the compute and energy capacity constraints in improving how we actually scale and deploy models in both the enterprise and the consumer setting. And it is such early days. And I just want to highlight this paper that came out from MIT, from these two scientists. And these guys published a paper on pruning techniques and neural networks. This paper showed that you could actually reduce the size of these networks by 90% and get the same accuracy out by pruning very large models, down to smaller models. And then you can make a selection on which model to run for inference. And by doing this, you can actually reduce inference costs by 10x. You can get 10x the output per energy unit that goes into the data center with no loss of accuracy. And so it's a really interesting call it algorithmic technique that can be applied to the existing large models to actually make them much lower energy use. So if you think about it, you're firing up a very large model to answer a very simple question. You can actually prune away that model. Now, this is probably going to be the case in AI applications as it is in traditional Google search. There's a long tail of searches, but there's a few searches that account for a large percentage of search volume. It's like, what is the weather, what are the movies, times, what's the stock price? Like there's a certain set of things that make up the bulk of consumer energy. And there's probably a certain set of things that probably make up the bulk of coding output as well. And so if you can get that 80% of searches or chat interfaces or coding requests, reduce down through pruning techniques to smaller models, and then you have a whole set of smaller models that can be called dynamically, and you reduce inference cost by 90%. You can make much more use, call it 10 times the use on data center and energy capacity than we can today. So I would argue that we're still in the very early days of getting efficiency in terms of output and tokens. And we're just in the very kind of early stage of that. So there also unlocks the opportunity for guys like Elon to reinvent how this is done and potentially compete pretty aggressively. There are two ways to win. You could throw compute at it, or you can do SLMs, small language models, and V, SLMs verticalize small language models. So if you had a verticalize small language model for the weather, let's say that doesn't exist, but you can use it as an example. They will have one for travel as an example. When you hit Google for flight information, it's obviously going to route you to something lighter and faster that uses Google flights and Google flights has been incorporated into Gemini. Gemini now is right behind 700, 750 million users. And it's exactly what we discussed. I don't know, 18 months ago on this podcast, I was like, "Oh, I'm going to do a search, "but I'm going to do a search, "but I'm going to do a search, possible. I do think that's what's best for consumers or economy. and for our country overall. Let me just say one other area where I think OpenAI had a good week is in this red hot area of cyber. Obviously, Anthropic made a huge splash with Mythos. It hasn't been commercially released. They're compute constrained, but as a proof of concept or training model, it hit a new level of capabilities with cyber. But now OpenAI has released a new model called GPT 5.5 cyber, which has just been through a bunch of tests and they've shown this was testing done by the AI Security Institute that GPT 5.5 is the second model to complete one of their multi-step cyber-attack simulations end-to-end. So it has the same level of capability as Mythos and it does appear to be commercially ready. You know, they've got the compute to serve it. So I do think that that's a big accomplishment. I mean, look, we knew that other cyber models were coming. It wasn't just going to be Mythos. In fact, within six months or so, all the frontier models are going to have Mythos level cyber capability. But it's impressive that OpenAI got this GPT 5.5 cyber out. So quickly, and I think 5.5 might be the first cyber model that cyber defenders actually get to use. Because again, I don't think there was compute constrained as Anthropic is. And this is an incredible opportunity, you know, for the Crown Tricks and Palo Alto Networks of the World, both of which have been on the program. They come out and they start attacking this space. Man, you could really see everything get tightened up. And this could be an incredible revenue stream for everybody who's got, whether it's cursor, quad, or OpenAI or Gemini. This is an amazing opportunity to tighten up as much as it is to get attacked. Can I make a point about that? Because there is so much fear right now, almost the level of panic about Mythos. People are treating it like a Doomsday weapon or something like that. It's not. It's simply that the frontier models have reached the point where they're capable of automating cyber activities, just like they're capable of automating coding. But that means that a model could power up a cyber attacker or cyber defender the same way they can power up a coder and allow them to discover a lot more vulnerabilities. So there is obviously a risk there. But I think it's important to understand that Mythos or GPT 5.5, it doesn't create the vulnerabilities. It just discovers them. The bugs were already in the code. They were seeing they're waiting for some hacker to discover. If we can now use AI to find these bugs in advance, these vulnerabilities, and patch them, then you actually harden our infrastructure and you harden our security. I also believe that this leap from, let's call it, pre-AI cyber to post-AI cyber, it's going to be, I think a big one-time upgrade cycle, because again, you're going to find all these dormant bugs and vulnerabilities. But I think that once we get past that upgrade cycle, you're going to reach a new equilibrium between AI-powered cyber offense and AI-powered cyber defense. It's going to become a lot more normal. It's not going to feel like this huge disruption, which is to say, I think people are treating this as some existential threat. I don't think it is as long as everyone does what they're supposed to do, which is use the new capabilities to harden their code bases and infrastructure and security before the hackers get a whole of these capabilities. >> Yeah, and if, if you were to look at this, to build on SaxasPoint, there are about 5 million or so security experts in the world, and we talked about token cost, 40 hours of tokens just pounding it, you know, a week, you could create another 5 million for $100 per Chief Security Officer per security expert. So it's the volume of security expert, agent Sax, to your point. Yeah, you could have 50 million of them, 100 million of them, they're not finding something you need. They're just, they never sleep. They're relentless in their pursuit of these problems. It's a really great point. >> Just kind of just refine that. So yeah, there's probably 5 million people in the cyber industry, but there's probably only a few thousand really elite hackers. >> Sure. Those hackers didn't have the time to go after the entire surface area of every possible attack vector out there. And so if you train a model to do what they do, obviously, like you said, it can operate with a scale and speed that a human hacker can't. So obviously, you know, what you need to do is get these tools in the hands of the White Hats, let them do the cyber attacks themselves to then find the vulnerabilities and patch them before the Black Hats get a hold of these capabilities. But I think it's just one last point in the self stop. It's just, it's really important to understand that the Chinese models are going to have these capabilities within approximately six months. >> Oh, they have them now in deep sea four for sure. They've got some level. >> Well, deep sea four, I mean deep sea four is impressive in a lot of ways, but its capability is not at the frontier. It's maybe 80, 80, 85% of, let's call it the American frontier. >> Timoff, you wanted to get it on this. Let's get Timoff. >> Two things. The reason that this is even possible is because humans are error prone. And when humans code, they create holes. And so humans exploiting humans is where we've been for a long time. Now we have computers exploiting humans because the computers go and seek out all these bugs that humans wrote. In the next phase, it'll be machines versus machines. And so I think the nature of cyber is going to completely change. Probably in the next five or six years, there'll be so much reason to rewrite all of the software that runs the world. In one part because you're going to be asked to show more operating leverage and revenue growth. But in another part because everything else that was handmade in the past is just fundamentally insecure. Either way, all roads will lead to all the operational software that runs the world will get rewritten. More and more of it will be written by machines. More and more of it will be impregnable as a result. But then the cyber threat actually will only increase. Because then you're going to try to figure out how to use a machine to inject something into another machine so that some agente loop injects a malware or injects a bad token. And I think that's a very complicated thing. What I will tell you is, I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say this, but a very good, probably the best cybersecurity company in the world run by one of the very best CEOs in the world. Who may or may not be speaking illiquidity, would tell you that they have penetrated and can essentially manipulate every model. Let me just say it roughly that way. - Okay, perfect. Yeah, at the breakthrough prize, which three of the four of us were out. I talked to George Kerr, it's the other person who were kind of describing this network. - Yeah, I was sitting beside Nick Cash. - Yeah, I'm talking about Nick Cash. - From the Cash in Georgia, the two guys leading this Palo Alto Networks Francherike. And they understand that what George told me was, there is just a line out the door of people who want this product or service. And if you look at it, Freeberg, like the murder rate, like we're sitting here with the lowest murder rate in the history of humanity. It has gone down massively in our lifetimes, but massively over the arc of history. I think that's what's gonna happen with Cyber. There are only so many attack vectors and the remaining attack vectors are just gonna be human factors, right? Freeberg, that's always been the case. And as we make the software more resilient, then the weak link is, you know, the secretary who puts her post it note, you know, with the password there or the account into, you know, uses their dog's name plus one, two, three for their password, right? That's the historic one. Okay, let's, anything you wanna have, Freeberg, as we wrap there? - Why is your bed so messy, by the way? Why can't you just ask the room service to come in and clean your bed? - Listen, I can tell you what happened. - Listen, I'm here in Atlanta. - And also, why don't you have a suite like where there's two rooms? Like is it just one room? - It is. - It is. - It is. - So, either you're cheaper poor, which one is it? - I'm cheap. - I'm cheap. Here's what I'll tell you, here's the situation. I'm in Atlanta for the next game tonight. - Here's what I do. I just wanna explain to you value for value. Some people spend their money on private jets and they spend $30,000 flying to Atlanta. I spend 30,000 on court side seats. I don't love the suite. I wanna put it into the seat. - Oh, and if you do board side, you can do both. - I guess I could do both too. I'm in the process of becoming-- - I don't understand. - Of embracing my richness, okay? If you've already convinced yourself that you should spend $30,000 for courtside tickets, which I think is outrageous, but okay, you've already convinced yourself-- - I'm like 10K each video. - A hotel room that has two rooms, okay? - I'm taking notes. - Probably cost 15% more than what you're paying. - It's two X, but yes, you're right. - I'll get the hotel room to 20% or 20% more, but you did just-- - It's just a room like 200 bucks a night. So you pay 400 a night, you know what I mean? - It's a land-died. The most, I'm in the best hotel, the most expensive hotel is 500 a night in Atlanta. It's no big deal. - Everything's sold out because all the next people are coming. So you're selling me double that would have been 1,000 and you couldn't spend 1,000. - It's everything is sold out because the nicks are here. - So we have to look at your dirty bed. - It's gross. - The bed's not that dirty, come on. Just deal with it, okay? - What's it take about a post? - I have a private jet story about flying to Atlanta. - Oh, that's not me. - Oh, there we go. - You reminded me. Okay, so yeah, there was some event there. So I flew my team there. You know, there's a few people on my plane. And it's kind of a long flight. It's like four hours or something. - It's like four from the day, yeah. - Yeah, so I went in the back to sleep. Well, first, we started the flight and I had a few bottles of Papi Van Winkle on the plane. And so we started off with like a drink. And then I went in the back and fell asleep and I woke up basically when we landed. So I come out and like all three bottles are basically cashed. I'm like, I have a van Winkle. - Oops. - There's like two grand of bottles. - No, I know there are more. These were like antique bottles. Like one of them was like-- - Yeah, I have one of those from your plane. I have one of those from the old Falcon. - Yeah, there were like, [BLANK_AUDIO] -Vintage balls of papi. -There were four of that. -I remember him. -Anyway, you can't even find this shit anymore. So these guys, they asked me, like, "Hey, Saks, how much should it cost for you to fly us to this event?" And I said, "Well, about $8,000 in jet fuel and about $12,000 of papi, you've been winking." -You got to fuel the vibes as well as the plane. -Is it Lanta and I said, "Never really?" -I do. Those people still work for you or they are. -They called in red. -Atlanta is atlanta nice. Liz Lesher, I went to the Troy games and that city was on the rebound. Atlanta has an incredible opportunity to rebound. I'll say it that way. There's a great opportunity for them to upgrade the city. I went to a waffle house at midnight last night. There was no shootings. Okay, let's keep moving. By the way, do you get. -I get points at the best western Atlanta or no. -I get double points because I use my best western visa card. -Yeah, it's everywhere you want it to be. -All right, use the promo code J-Count and get 1,000 extra points. In other open AI news, must versus Altman, the trial of the century, maybe the decade, has started. Elon is, of course, accusing OpenAI of breach of charitable trust, unjust enrichment. He's accusing OpenAI of essentially flipping a nonprofit into a for-profit. He's seeking 150 billion in damages that they revert back to a nonprofit that Altman and Brockman be removed. And there were some fireworks between Elon and the OpenAI lawyers. Elon kind of leveled up the discussion. He said, "If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving, in America will be destroyed. That's my concern." Obviously, there's a ton of interesting nuances here. Specifically, Greg Brockman keeping a diary where he was journal-maxing his plans, like a Bond villain here, and the excerpts from his diary include conclusion. We truly want the B-Corp. The true answer is that we want Elon out. If three months later we're doing B-Corp, then it was a lie. Can't see us turning this into a for-profit without a nasty fight. I'm just thinking about the office, and we're in the office, and this story will correctly be that we weren't honest with him. In the end, it's still about wanting a for-profit just without him. Yada, yada, yada. Freiburg, your thoughts on this case. Is he longer to win? I just don't know why Greg Brockman's got a friggin' diary where he's like literally documenting. I mean, I love the guy, but what the f*** is he thinking? Like, you're just sitting here at home, and like, let me write about the crime I'm committing, or let me write it, and let me record it. And by the way, let me never delete it. I don't understand this. It's not just journal-maxing, it's discovery-maxing. It's a smoking gun-maxing. I don't get it. I don't get it. I mean, you guys remember from the wire in that scene where the guy's like, "Is your taking notes on a criminal f***ing-spiracy?" This is kind of everybody in the room. Can we play that clip? It's like, yeah. Why that clip, man? Are you doing Greg? Is your taking notes on a criminal f***ing conspiracy? F*** is your thinking, man? If you're going to commit a crime, you do not write down the date and time of the crime in your journal. Oh, look. We don't know. It's a crime. Let's not. Okay, sure. Don't care about the diary. Don't care about the crime, but. Well, yes. You keep it shenanigans. Tomah, do you keep a diary? What do you think? J.K., I'll do you keep a diary. I believe you. I'll tell you right now. Rumination is the path to unhappiness. Nobody gives a s*** about your feeling, fighting your feelings down. It's only going to make you miserable, talking to your spouse about your feelings. Just go to a beautiful dinner, sit court side at the next, and do what I've been doing for 30 f***ing years. Re-tart max. Re-tart max. And so, register goes up. All you have to do is work. Start new projects, 9 out of 10 foul, place 9 out of 10 bets, one wins, and you're golden. Go sit court side at the next game. Keep going. Life's too short. And just keep moving forward. Don't write anything down. Period full stop. Good advice. Yeah, I just. The biggest surprise to me was this guy's got a diary. I just. I don't know anyone that has a diary. I've never heard of this. So, anyway, that was shocking. Move. Besides that, I've no view on what's going to happen with the case, or the judge will do. I have no comment on the case, either. I think it's weird that Pauli Market hasn't budged, even as all of this discovery has been published. Effectively at 42 or 43% that Elon wins. So, one of the friends in our group chat said, "What may just happen is that Elon technically wins and he's just credited back the $40 million." And so, maybe that's what this poll is front running. But on a totally separate note, I think Jason, I know you say it as a joke, but this idea of just keep moving forward. Don't ruminate. I think it's very good general life advice for everybody to follow. The modern day therapy, industrial complex, and the medication, industrial complex, I believe is ruining the ruminations. Pivot around ruminations. Well, it does pivot around ruminations. Yes. That is the gateway drug to all these things. Yeah. Talk about your problems. You know, when these people go to therapy, you ever hear of these people, how are it sounds like I've been in therapy with the same person two or three days a week for 40 years? I'm like, "Okay, what's the incentive for the therapist to stop charging you $1,200 an hour?" There is none. Then they lose a revenue stream. They lose a customer. It's all a giant fucking fraud. In terms of this case, I wouldn't go that far. I do think that there's a lot of value in kind of untying some of these gordy and knots that people have because of how they grew up. But there's a difference between that and being specific and just randomly ruminating because I don't think there's a lot of productive. You've got an acute issue like in trauma in your life. Yes, sure. Unpack it, figure it out. I'm just talking about this never-ending self-improvement, you know, ruminating thing. But getting back on topic here, SACS, what's the -- and we're talking about a jury. I believe in Oakland. No, but it's a bench trial. This is important. It's a bench trial where the jury is advisory in capacity. Yes. But ultimately, that judge, she will make the final call. And she'll do the damages. And so, is this a case SACS of like, we've got a Bay Area jury judge. And we've got Elon, who's considered, you know, a bit right-wing and people don't all agree in that area in terms of his politics. And then you have this Sam Altman, New Yorker story, and people finding out that so many different people feel they got screwed by him. You put these two things together. It's impossible to hand a cap where this turns out SACS. Your thoughts? Well, yeah, I don't think this is about politics. I mean, I guess you could argue that what Elon is seeking, which is to protect the charity, is if anything a left-coded sort of principle. Sure. Although I don't really think it's left versus right. Look, I don't want to take sides on this trial. I'm just watching like everyone else. The last time I weighed in on some Elon litigation, I got deposed for six hours. Remember that? Because they just assumed that somehow I know something. Right. I talked to Elon about the case. I don't know anything about it. Yeah. I'm going to see what happens like everyone else. Now, one thing I will say having just read some of the coverage is that apparently the company at some point did offer Elon shares in the company. But he thought that there was something kind of icky about it. Do you remember this? Yes. Because at one point I said on our show when this dispute started happening before it became a court case, I said, look, if open AI at a certain point decided they had wrong structure, they should have gone and done a make right with Elon and he should have been a shareholder on the cap table. What I didn't know is that apparently they did try to do something like that. But Elon turned it down because he did want the entity to remain a charitable entity. He had a principled view of it according to the reports and was like, no, we're trying to save humanity. And then you're giving this key to the kingdom to Microsoft. That's all come out. And I also have not talking to you on about any of this. But my guess is like most of these things, there'll be some sort of settlement or something here. But maybe he takes it to the mat. Who knows? Judge Rogers who's doing this 61 year old Obama appointee. Politics has played a role. Sax they have had to tell the jury like however you feel about these individuals politically, whatever, please put that aside. But of note is that she oversaw the epic games versus apple trial over apps were exclusively ruled in favor of apple with some caveats that they don't have a monopoly, etc. So this is going to be a really interesting one. I think the worst case scenario is open AI for open eyes. They have to unravel this somehow and that would double delay the IPO that would cost chaos and shareholders and I guess the best case is some sort of settlement. And if Elon put the first 40 or 50 million dollars in he's he's due 10 20 30% of the company after dilution. All right, let's keep moving through the docket lots more to discuss and good luck to everybody in their lawsuit and those of you betting on market all in summit selling off fast. Our fifth edition Los Angeles September 13th to 15th go to all in dot com slash events and speakers are going to be top tier. Apparently free bird is having this as his major creative outlet. I heard some back channel to moth today that he's going to be doing Broadway musical allusion. I got a tap dancing situation. He's literally. going full on entertainer. This is going to be Vodville sacks wrapped up. He's just going to take it to a whole new level. Musical numbers. Nathan Lane. I think if you're coding that it's going to be his big gay summit. Yes. You could be a big gay summit. My pair last year in LA guys. I'm not sure if I'm going to be a big gay summit. It's the largest money printing machines in the history of humanity. But they are giving up on free cash flow, stock buybacks and dividends. And the focus on those three to invest in infrastructure. And what that caused was a lot of aggressive companies to do massive amounts of spending, a lot of retail investors to embrace these stocks, like we're seeing with people trying to get into these private companies. And actually look at the 2000 peak of Cisco. This is the most extraordinary chart ever. It took them 25 years to get back to that peak. And they had a lost two decades. And we had a massive amount of fiber that wound up getting bought. We talked about that a couple of years ago on the program. But there's something for you to build off of here when you look at this massive infrastructure. You think it's going to be Cisco systems all over again, WorldCom, etc.? No, I really don't. The issue we had in 2000 was dark fiber. You had all this infrastructure being built out. And it wasn't being used. There's no dark GPUs today, as, you know, Greg Ursulaer likes to say. So what's driving the CapEx now is the voracious demand for compute for token. And the demand is now pulling forward this additional investment in infrastructure. So I think what's happened here is that the bull thesis for AI just got validated in a single afternoon. I mean, again, you got Microsoft Azure Google Cloud Amazon AWS meta. They're all basically exceeding expectations, exceeding guidance in terms of where their cloud revenue would be. And therefore, how much they're going to reinvest in CapEx. This year, I think we were supposed to have $660 billion of hyperscaler CapEx up from $350 last year. I think there's now the new estimate is going to be over 700. So this is, you know, again, it's more than 2% of GDP. This is a huge tailwinds of GDP. There's another article saying that I think in the last quarter, AI was 75% of GDP growth. And by the way, this is just the case. And by the way, this is just the CapEx part. This is the physical infrastructure. This is not the economic impact of the tokens that are generated inside the token factory. This is the building of the factories. How do those tokens get used? Like we're seeing they're being used not just to do research or to answer questions, but to create code. And so we were seeing this explosion of productivity in software development. And we were seeing an explosion of bespoke software being created. And that's going to accelerate every part of the economy, every business that now wants to get code will be able to get code for the first time before they couldn't even hire the engineers. They needed to generate it. Now they will be able to. So that is a huge unlock of productivity across the economy. Then you're getting into these new use cases like the co-working use cases and agents. The workflow automations that are happening. It's still early. I don't believe that this is going to replace humans. In the past week, we had that crazy case of an agent deleting a production database in nine seconds. Because of a bug. Look, what that said to me is that it's not that agents aren't valuable. They are valuable. But they have to be supervised. You know, this idea that you're just going to be able to like automate all the jobs away. It is a massive amount of hand waving over the real technical problems and issues. The agents have to be supervised. Someone has to be accountable. It's not going to be the CEO. The CEO doesn't want to be accountable for thousands of agents. You need people just by a wood job. Yeah, blocks and yeah, you're saying that direct reports is a great like goal. But it's not realistic. You need by T people who are savvy who can supervise this and make sure it's working. They have to be accountable to the CEO. Someone has to drive the productivity. It's like biology always said AI is not end to end is middle to middle. You have to have someone to do the prompting. and you have to someone do the validating and I would add the supervision and accountability. So anyway, the larger point though is I'm speaking to the fact that I don't think there's going to be this huge job loss associated with this productivity boom that we're going to get. And in fact, I think what's actually happening now is that AI is becoming synonymous with the American economy. I mean, the fact that it's generating 75% of GDP, you have this CapEx explosion, this energy explosion that feeds it. And again, just the beginning of the applications that are being unleashed by these new token factories, I think it's all a very, very positive thing. And all these doomers who are trying to throw a web blanket on it or constantly scaring the daylights out of people, I mean, what do they want the American economy to do just to stop? I mean, they just don't want any progress. I mean, like again, you know, when you talk about stopping AI or halting AI progress, what you're really doing is stopping the American economy now. You're basically saying you don't want economic growth. AI is now synonymous with the growth of the American economy. And if there's no economic growth, there's not going to be money to pay for all the social programs, there's not going to be money to pay down the national debt, there's not going to be money to basically build up our national defense. All these things we want to spend money on, we have to have a vibrant economy. And that is now synonymous with AI. So I know that AI may not be popular. I see those polls, but having a strong economy is popular. And I believe that those things are now synonymous. It's almost like there was some architect or ZAR who set up the chess board in the first year of this to make sure that it was ultra competitive. No, President Trump set the table on this. Absolutely. With some good advice, I think maybe freeburg your thoughts. It's always good to have good advisors. Oh, it's good to have good advisors. Absolutely. Absolutely. No, but look, I've said it before, the president just wants America to win. Literally, there are people who, if we were looking at this, you know, I don't know, a hundred years ago, it'd be like people were like, yeah, you know what, we shouldn't build the highway system where we have built the highway system, let's stop. Let's stop building the highways. The highway system was funded by the federal government. There was no competition. It was the most expensive on a inflation adjusted basis. I think it was the most expensive project in US history. And the railroads before that, like you can't stop these things. They have to keep going. It's an interesting point. You know, there is so much demand for the resource of tokens of intelligence freeburg. And it's quite different than the fiber situation, exactly points out where we built all this, but we didn't actually have an application. Here, the application is pretty well known. And you've got a large number of people in businesses who are trying to vibe code their way to success, trying to push this stuff. And we had an interesting story reference earlier in the show where Claude ate somebody's homework. This is the nightmare of all nightmares. Somebody was vibe coding. It was the founder of Pocket OS apparently. They make software for rental car companies. He was using Opus 4.6 through a Kirchner's AI platform. They're a coding platform. And you know, which is like the most expensive tier. And he said he configured it with enough safety rules. But the agent was working on a routine task. They saw some sort of credentialing mismatch. And they decided to fix the mismatch by deleting a railway volume without user confirmation. And they pushed the code from a repo to a live app. And they deleted everything, including the backups literally a scene from Silicon Valley's HBO clip of son of Anton Polaris. You gave your AI permission to overwrite code in the internal file system. Were you going to tell me about this? No. I thought that was the company policy these days. Okay. Well, your AI just failed epically. That's unclear. It's possible that son of Anton decided that the most efficient way to get rid of all the bugs was to get rid of all the software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial neural nets are sort of a black box, so we'll never know for sure. How did they get that? So right. So five years ago, Art and the World Network sort of black box. So I guess we'll never know. But technically it was correct. Freeberg, when you blow up a hollow system with your vibe coding, which you were absolutely showing off in front of Jensen a couple of weeks ago about how much code you're pushing. Who are you going to blame? You're going to take responsibility yourself. Are you going to blame Claw or Cursor? Who are you going to blame when you blow up the entire stack over at Ohio? Who you blame? For you. Yeah. Blamed Dario. You blame Dario. Okay. That's what I thought. That's correct answer. Correct answer. Blamed Dario. He's the one who says it's a Doomsday machine. Come on the prod anytime Dario. Seventeen. I would have invited Tyler 17. He totally goes to me. He wants nothing to do with his podcast. Actually, let me speak to that. So I think I think that there's maybe a misperception that this error occurred because of quote unquote AI scheming. Like kind of in that video that the AI decided that the best way to get rid of bugs is to basically eliminate the code base. This is kind of like the, you know, AI is going to turn the world into paper clips type thing where somehow it'll like miskeme. That's not really what happened here. This is a case of just a of old fashioned bugs occurring at an edge case. You know, you've got the fact that this API was not designed for permissioned usage. You've got the fact that a credential was left kind of lying around probably it should not be. There's kind of like a perfect storm that caused the AI to do something or the agent to do something I didn't quite understand it was what it was doing. I think that if there is a systemic problem here rather than just kind of a like a random edge case, it's that AI still doesn't know what it doesn't know. You know, like a human would stop before deleting a production database and just say, oh, I'm about to do something like really serious, really destructive. Am I sure I want to do this? You know, and a human would have stopped and said, oh, wait a second. Like I need to be more confident in what I'm doing before I take that action. And AI still has this issue where again, it can be kind of overconfident. This is where like the hallucinations come from. Is it doesn't know when it should have a low confidence in its output, right? But this is why it has to be supervised. You know, the longer the time horizon for a task, the more likely it is to go off the rails and a drift. Exactly. And this is why I think people are starting to realize that this idea of eliminating all software developers was the peak of inflated expectations. Yes. Right. There was actually a really good tweet on this by Aaron Levy who's got the right take on this. Aaron retweeted Matthew Iglesias who sort of sordonically tweeted that five months in, I think I've decided I don't want a vibe code. I want professionally managed software companies to use AI coding assistance to make more better cheaper software products that they sell to me for money. Just lower your prices. Don't make me vibe code. Is the translation? Yeah. I mean, I think like RareWin for from out of glaciers there. Anyway, Aaron Levy then says. Agente coding is a huge move for software developers that want to get more done and it's fantastic for anyone curious to learn how to start coding. What it's less great for is casually building complex software that you have to maintain on an ongoing basis and take all the risk for upgrades maintenance, keeping up with today with latest security issues, you know, the bugs cyber. Those are taxes on most knowledge workers who aren't familiar with the system. It's not a tax. It's a huge risk. Yes. As a risk asked to be managed. It's a risk. People will get fired because there will be some public company where some goofball tries to vibe code their way out of something and they're going to torch the enterprise value. It's going to be glorious to watch because we're all going to laugh and realize that was stupid and should never have happened in the first place. Yeah. I mean, there is a chance that this improves to the point, past this trial disillusionment and become super productive and you'll be able to get an agent to do reasonable things without deleting your data set. But we have a way to go. Here is your, you know, this is the tech adoption chart. Basically, you got a technology test trigger. You have the trial. You have this peak of inflated expectations. You go into the trial disillusionment and then the slope of enlightenment invests and eventually it becomes DeRigur and it's an opportunity. Hey, Friedberg, you have become Reddit true tied curious. You have. And also tell me, tell me about red of Friedberg because I want it. I want to get on it. I want to use it and I need you to tell that that it's okay for me to take it. I have a friend who asks you to provide you. Friedberg. The coverage is coming out of this phase three clinical trial data released that Lily put out last month. So everyone's going crazy over the data, which continues to show pretty amazing results. So unlike Terzepetide, which is kind of Lily's main product today, which is a dual agonist. It's got two peptides in it that bind to different receptors, the GLP1, the GIP receptor. This other one now also binds to glucagon, which is a third receptor. And that glucagon receptor binding peptide causes the cells to increase their metabolism, which actually accelerates fat energy consumption over what would typically be muscle energy consumption. It's more likely to burn up fat early on, which causes more quick fat loss, but also reduces muscle loss. And some of the other data that's now coming out shows non-HDL cholesterol down 27%. Triglycerides down 41%. Liver fat down 80%. 80% reduction of liver fat A1C drops From 7.9% to 6% in 40 weeks, which is amazing by the way if you're diabetic and your A1C drops that much in a couple of months It's literally a life-saving product the average Either in this phase three trial saw their weight decline from 214 pounds. They lost 37 pounds. That's compared to six pounds on placebo in 40 weeks and You know modest side effects 20% people felt more nauseous than the people that were on the placebo. There's a lot of other separate studies that are being done now that are showing significant reductions in inflammatory signaling molecules so systemic signaling of like hey cells are in distress triggers this kind of inflammatory process that can have a lot of other damage to your body can accelerate aging and So one of the other conversations is it retic true tide might actually be kind of a de agent drug as well You know and a lot of the studies by the way are done on the the very high dose 12 milligram dose But you could probably get this thing dose down to two milligrams and still see a lot of the anti-inflammatory Maintenance and other benefits. I'm no doctor, but people are going nuts over This being more widely useful than just for clinical obesity or time only after When's the projected date for 2027 mid 27? That's what they're saying could happen sooner. I mean the data's in the you know the FDA will take their time to evaluate it, but I think given the way this is all looking Could happen sooner could happen sometime later this year swim Chimoff swim Said it's incredible and that it's living up to the hype in their experience Who swim? What is that? What is that? Someone who isn't me swim? This is a Reddit term someone who isn't me said who has a guy swim has a guy and Has cycled on redditch Rutaid and does push ups and says muscle gain has been spectacular No muscle loss and a lowering of fat if you go on X and you just search up Retta mm-hmm It's like incredible you see these like 65 year old guys that go from a dad bod to looking like an Incredibly ripped athlete in weeks and I I Mean I'm shocking and for me. I don't need that help per se but by liver health It's important to me my cardiac health because I'm a South Asian and it just looks like a wonder drug I can't wait when you starve your body when you turn off the the appetite Which is the GLP one agonist function normally your body goes into this kind of motive starvation and you have This process by which your body tries to generate energy from your existing cells and Because muscle is much denser than fat You can have a favoring of muscle tissue being kind of broken up over fat tissue But what this new agonist this glucagon agonist they put into this new retitruthide is it favors fat burning over muscle burning And so that actually can drive short-term use at low dose for people to cut weight and Maintain muscle and get ripped and so that's why a lot of people in the kind of fitness community are talking about Hey, I want to get access to this and get on it for a while so you'll see a lot more height probably in That community as well as the all the health effects it just feels like we're about to have An absolute avalanche of peptides to choose from on November of 2025 Lily cut a deal with the Trump administration I saw this to drop the price on Terzepetide pretty significantly. I think it's like 50 bucks on Medicare 50 bucks from Medicare. Yeah, which is a pretty cheap price point But it starts to make sense as you think about the portfolio of Lily products You get Terzepetide for 50 bucks, but if you want to upgrade get the retitruthide That's the high premium product and that's where they're gonna start Be the Mercedes to the home. I'm sure if I'm lily and I'm sitting there I'm looking at this data coming out. I'm like my god people will pay for this and that starts to become sort of like the upgrade to the BMW or the model S plot if you will yeah, the Terzepetide is like the one bedroom messy bed Hotel you know the other ones the sweet red or true tide is like the two bedroom Sweet, but you can also by the way, but you guys know I'm a spokesman for row They also have the wagova pill road dot-co slash twist to get your With your Super row and then you come over on all in and you start promoting No, no, no, no, no, no, trust me. We'll get one of those as well. We'll get a road dot-co sponsorship here What was the role pill that you had me get? What was it called? Oh sparks? I have taken it and now I'm on a No, maybe just a half of their lives. I'll hear the story. I only go sorry. Go. It's so out of control So then what happens is not and I are like you can't you can't just randomly use it. It's scheduled We discuss it. We put it on the calendar because you need a plan. You need a plan can't go with it because it's otherwise It's otherwise too much. It's just can't randomly take it. What do you mean? It's gonna be a sash It's a whole thing man. It's like I don't have the energy It's an extended session you you have to be well rested. Don't do this at 1 a.m. This is like a 10 p.m I don't know this is like a no this is more like a this is more like invocation you know like 10 a.m. To 12 p.m. You know to noon, you know, it's you got a really you got a really Schedule it schedule it because otherwise it's around otherwise it's got to be empty Now, otherwise it's out in fear to her and it's just a lot. It's a lot. It's a it's a big commitment literal You you look embarrassed to mock you feeling embarrassed talking about it. It's just a lot man It's like it's a lot to handle. It's a lot. It's if you want to get the extra 20% in your performance It's a lot. It's a lot. It's basically But I'm just double what happened what happened was I was like, oh, what is this thing Jason's like dude you must get it So we got it we tried it and we were like what the fuck was that and so then I've been trying to bleed the pills out So I gave something to stand tang. I'm like Stanley you try it He's dealing them like cards But when we're having poker dinner, I'm like does anybody want to try these things but he's like the What is it? Rostparts is outsparks All right, let's keep moving here Freedberg guys Freedberg had his own personal Super Bowl You see me getting ready for next playoff season. I get my court side Freedberg had the equivalence acts He went to the Supreme Court in order to hear them talk about chemicals This was a big deal for him the Supreme Court coming together Was it the month of month Santo Trial happened in the Supreme Court and he went he got court side He went to the Supreme Court and listen in the building have you guys ever seen a lot of Supreme Court hearing? No, I'd love to know. I'd love to have you been No, I haven't actually I mean honestly, I think it was one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had there was a massive protest out front We went through the Marshall's office to get in and that building you walk in it's like sacred It's all marble It's you're not a lot of talk you have to be super quiet when you're in the building like they keep going Like you're in some quiet library It's like people treat it with this level of kind of sanctity that and respect and they're like there is no politics here There is no bullsh*tting there is no freedom of speech. This is the court when you come into this court The justices tell you how you will speak how you will behave what you will do and you will not speak Like unless spoken to you put all your stuff in a locker You go up the stairs you go into the court room and the courtroom It's just so amazing being in there They have this amazing marble phrase above the justices that had some of the great people of human history Moses and he's kind of amazing historical figures and then below them are the nine justices and The court case if you guys haven't watched the case you can listen to them. I think online Yeah, we're on wait wait wait, I have questions So does Robert sit in the middle because he's a chief? Yes, and then do all of the right justices sit on the right no, they're mixed so there I think I don't know I don't know the exact seating but they're mixed I think that's right and then so yeah, that's right and then it kind of goes out from the middle with Roberts in the middle Roberts Occasionally will name the justices and say hey, do you have a question? Do you have a question if no one's talking but otherwise the justices will jump in with their questions when they want and the last now honest to God watching this is like watching LeBron James play basketball these lawyers are so mind-blowingly Impressive on both sides that you would just like sit there and I was like in awe it was so I felt like my energy was Completely sapped from the end of this process because you were just so engaged and so caught into the way that these guys are thinking and talking did you take a roast sparks you take a roast sparks when you were there? No, and if you're familiar if you're familiar enough with the case or the case history or the law that's being debated because again when you get to the Supreme Court You never debate the case what you're debating is the legal interpretation of the decisions that were made on the case and so is this Constitutional how do you interpret this particular act this law this federal law? What's the right way to think about it? So you don't actually talk about the case you talk about the interpretation of American law Of our laws of the Constitution of the diversity of the facts have already been determined that's right at a lower court There's questions of fact and questions of law the facts have already been determined by the lower court It's just the Supreme Court is ruling on questions of law That's right and so they have a full briefing with the full history of the case and remember they only hear two cases a day So they're one hour each for each hearing so you go in and they only do it Monday Tuesday Wednesday on the last two weeks And they only hear cases from our October to April. There's only a handful of cases that are selected. Wow. So you're really on a shot clock then to make sure that you're on a shot clock. And you only have and it's 30 minutes aside. And then the justices will ask question. So this was Monsanto and Roundup, right? So what was the law that was being debated for years? The regulatory body, the EPA, sets the label for pesticides. Does this cause cancer or not? What are the warnings? This can be damaging for birth defects, pregnancy, all the things that were all used to seeing on labels when you buy a product, a chemical product. And the EPA and the regulatory authority determined that Roundup does not cause cancer. When you sell a pesticide, you first have to register it with the EPA, get it approved. And then the EPA gives you a label. And the label is written by the EPA. It says exactly what you're supposed to say. And in this case, it said all the stuff doesn't say cancer because they determine it does not cause cancer. And I'm not going to debate whether or not it causes cancer. But that's the case that was made is that the EPA is the regulatory body under a federal act called FIFRA, fungicide, insecticide or denocide act. And that's where the EPA has given the regulatory authority to put the label on these products. And all of the cases that have been lost have been state failure to warn cases to date, Bayer, which now owns Monsanto has paid out $10 billion in these lawsuits. And they have reserved $10 billion on their balance sheet. They have 90,000 cases still outstanding in the court. 90,000. And so this one case got kind of appealed up to the Supreme Court. Last year, the White House solicitor general, and if the solicitor general steps up and asks the Supreme Court to take a case, it's more likely the case gets taken. So the White House said, please take this case. We need to have federal preemption, meaning the federal government has the right to set the label because all of the cases that have been lost and that are being adjudicated are in state courts where the state has a law, like in California, called a failure to warn law, which means if a manufacturer knows that a product carries a risk, you have to warn the consumer. And so the lawyers have been arguing that Monsanto or Bayer knew that this product caused cancer and didn't warn the consumer. And they've been winning cases, they've been losing cases, but they've won enough cases that this has now become a multi-deck-a-billion dollar problem. And so the argument is that the EPA says it doesn't cause cancer and they have federal preemption. So the EPA has the right to determine. So that's the one argument. But then when the other attorney came up, this guy was like literally like watching LeBron James. And so going in, we were like, oh, six, three Bayer's going to win. And then the other guy comes up and he was like, well, hey, you guys overturned the Chevron doctrine last year. You guys remember that case? Yeah. We're basically, when the Chevron doctrine got overturned, it basically said that no longer does the federal agency get to decide it has to be a direct reading of the law. So now, so he's saying like the states should have a right to read the law themselves. They shouldn't have to just defer to the EPA. And that's what this will come down to. So at the end of it, we were like, oh my god, this could be a 50/50 coin flip five, four either way. And going into it, we were kind of like trying to say, hey, maybe this could be six, three. So honestly, the whole experience was incredible. The case is interesting. These are very complicated matters. How are these people able to make a full sum argument in like, once I get 30 minutes, the other side gets 30 minutes, there's a little Q and A. And then you're done in an hour. There's this whole arc and science and sex. You're probably familiar with this on how do you distill down a Supreme Court case in the briefing doc? Like, what is it? You're petitioning around the court. And you're trying to still look down to the exact legal interpretation you want the judge to rule on not all the other bulls. And this is a oral arguments. Yes. Oral arguments. Just a discussion. And then the judge has jump in and all they're doing is asking the lawyer questions one lawyer at a time, the one side and then the other side. And by the way, the solicitor general came up in the middle and kind of made a few comments and asked her some questions from the White House and she sat down. And then the two sides kind of went back and forth. And they just, they said 30 minutes Q and A each on that one specific legal question. And Kataji Brown Jackson said, but what if after the EPA issued the label, they found out information that it does cost cancer. Shouldn't they update the label? And he's saying, well, no, they're not allowed to. They can only issue the label. The EPA says. And he says also, and it's, it's a criminal case if they find out that it does cost cancer and they don't report it to the EPA. And then she's saying, well, what if the EPA doesn't act? And shouldn't the states have a right to protect their people? So those are the legal arguments, the discussions that are going on in all of this. And there's interesting implications, which is fundamentally, if the states get to interpret federal law and ignore federal regulatory bodies, it opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of like all the states can start to ignore federal regulatory, regulatory bodies like the EPA or the FDA or the USDA or an on and on and on. So the whole case has a whole bunch of really interesting implications wound up in it. When you hear these guys and they're just talking to them off about that exact like interpretation of the law. And that's what this comes down to. It's not the actual case that matters. And after the sacks, they will go to arguments and then they have like a private conference where they'll write their papers and give their final judgment. Yeah. Sacks. Yeah. I think the process is that so I guess there's some discussion that happens behind closed doors and they figure out where the majority is. And then the chief gets to assign who writes the opinion for the majority. In that meeting, nobody is allowed in. And in fact, you have a double door system where like if anything needs to come in and out, you have to like kind of like knock on the door with your lead into this anti chamber. Oh, is it airlock? It's effective. We I had I don't know if you were there, Jason, but we had Ted Cruz come to play in the poker game. And Ted Cruz clerked for William Rank list. And if you want to have an incredible dinner, ask him about the Supreme Court and Bill Rank list. He's a real student of the Supreme Court. And it just makes the Supreme Court freeber to your point sound like the most incredible body that's ever been created anywhere. By the way, more than the White House, more than the Capitol building, more than any of these other big agencies, this place has, it's almost like being in England. It has these kind of ways that people operate. The security is so different. They kind of stand there in the court and they all exchange places every 20 minutes. It's very coordinated. They're dressed very differently than any other court room. Listening maybe like 150, I would say. How do you get to take it? So they are. So I think I think I actually think everyone is a guest of a clerk or someone that works at the court. I don't think that it's like very publicly available to get in there. You can't line up. There's no line up. There's I don't know if there's a lineup. This was I know for you on. We got in through the chief justice. He gave us the past, but I think it was like very I think at the Elon versus opening i case, there's you can line up and then the judge gave like 30 tickets to the press. That's not the Supreme Court. No, yeah, but I think there's a lineup for the Supreme Court as well. There's some public access that they're not like anyone from the public within this court. Everyone is dressed respectfully. I mean, this court has an incredible amount of like, you know, that's a super cool experience. It's a great. I would say enjoy it while you can. I mean, I think the Supreme Court is one of the last highly functional institutions in the United States. At some point, we're going to have like 13 or 21 or some crazy number of just stuff up there. They should put in a sack and get your shoes. Everybody show up with their jerseys of justices there. And so enjoy it while it's still in the current in the current form. It's in. Exactly. You imagine showing up with jerseys with the justices names on them and like having sections and like somebody selling cracker jacks. The accuracy version. Exactly. The popularity of the court really depends on whether it's issuing decisions that people agree with. That's what it comes down to. If you ask people whether they like this from court or not, it really just depends on whether they agree with the decisions or how. Sure, we should see. As opposed to the process of the decisions and how well argued it is and all these things that you're pointing to. Actually, I mean, I just checked the numbers. The court is relatively popular right now. I think that it got as low as 35% in the 2024 Gallup survey. But I think it's back up to like 44 to 50% favorability, which for something that's involved in politics is relatively high right. Like you look at Congress or any particular politician, they're going to be lower than that typically. I just felt so assured of like the institution when I visited and saw these guys interact and behave and how they behave the process. It was like, man, this is what an amazing country. Well, the reason I say what I say is there was an interview with James Carville recently. You guys see this. I saw that. He said, look, when we get power, we're packing the court. So we're not even going to we're not going to worry about it. Yeah, we said get to 13, right? He said, yeah, they're going to go from 9 to 13 and then they're going to create some new states and all the rest of it. So that'll be that. Enjoy. Enjoy. Enjoy. Enjoy. Enjoy. Enjoy. Enjoy. By the end on a high note. See, I'm going to the empire. That'll be that. By the way, there is a Supreme Court. I was correct. There is an online ticketing lottery. So we can all sign up and you can get a four pack of tickets. I think they should make this. We should talk to Howard Lutnik. Maybe he can make this an auction. We get a revenue stream from the US. We can sell like 10 of the tickets that's court side seats for 20 grad Jason. You're exactly what they're trying to protect against that exactly. How can we how can we monetize this Supreme Court? All right, everybody. That's it. That's the world's greatest podcast for you for Chimoff Pau, Hapiti, David Freiburg and David Sachs. I am the world greatest moderator. We'll see you next time. I'm like the chief justice of the olive But guess. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]