World's First Trillionaire, Anthropic Fable Banned, The New Oligarchs, Iran Peace Deal

all right everybody welcome back to the number one podcast in the world it's the all-in podcast the original quartet is here bizarre david sacks how you doing brother i'm good you had a busy week a lot of long posts from you on x we'll get into it wait a lot of what long posting a lot of long posts i had like one long post yeah how's the carpal tunnel going over there yeah that carpal tunnel flaring up i got a third one teed up by i might use one in the chamber i got one in the chamber but i was gonna save it for the pod it's a good right oh coming in hot i wonder who's gonna get this bullet let your winners ride brain man david sacks and it said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy love you guys a cackling a of course it's the dick dictator is my best teacher mom holly hoppatia how you doing brother getting ready for summer summer gelays have been laid on the bed you're ready to pack it up opposite i got a lot of travel grinding oh i forgot you're doing founder-led sales so the summer of relaxation's over now he's in the ceo slot gotta get out there and do those enterprise sales and of course you're doing founder-led sales so the summer of relaxation's over now he's in the ceo slot gotta get out there and do those enterprise sales and of course you're doing founder-led sales and of course you're doing founder-led sales and of course coming off a pretty hot week coming off a pretty hot week coming off a pretty hot week comment section was comment section was comment section was on fire very pro freebird very very on fire very pro freebird very very on fire very pro freebird very very freebird perhaps his greatest performance freebird perhaps his greatest performance freebird perhaps his greatest performance also greatest the first performance when also greatest the first performance when also greatest the first performance when he said more than three sentences he said more than three sentences he said more than three sentences what's going on freeberg you went off what's going on freeberg you went off what's going on freeberg you went off last episode and and then i think you last episode and and then i think you last episode and and then i think you also with the long posts you know also with the long posts you know also with the long posts you know what's so funny as the valuation of what's so funny as the valuation of what's so funny as the valuation of ohalo ticks up he gets more and more ohalo ticks up he gets more and more ohalo ticks up he gets more and more based i love it he is getting welcome to based i love it he is getting welcome to based i love it he is getting welcome to the club welcome to the club he's got the club welcome to the club he's got the club welcome to the club he's got trace commas based unleash the beast trace commas based unleash the beast trace commas based unleash the beast when you're just a mere singleton you when you're just a mere singleton you when you're just a mere singleton you kind of just keep it to yourself and kind of just keep it to yourself and kind of just keep it to yourself and then all of a sudden then all of a sudden you're a nine-figure friedberg he's like i got you're a nine-figure friedberg he's like i got you're a nine-figure friedberg he's like i got something to lose wait for ten figure something to lose wait for ten figure something to lose wait for ten figure free bird ten figure free birds like free bird ten figure free birds like free bird ten figure free birds like yolo yolo yolo you also with the long posts you and you also with the long posts you and you also with the long posts you and nancy pelosi uh making sweet sweet nancy pelosi uh making sweet sweet nancy pelosi uh making sweet sweet here's what's happening he's starting here's what's happening he's starting here's what's happening he's starting what's happening what is being formed in the united what is being formed in the united what is being formed in the united states right now states right now states right now the great american politburo is being the great american politburo is being the great american politburo is being formed formed formed the new oligarchs are taking their the new oligarchs are taking their the new oligarchs are taking their seats seats seats they're arranging the chairs they're they're arranging the chairs they're they're arranging the chairs they're determining who will be chairman of the determining who will be chairman of the determining who will be chairman of the politburo politburo politburo who will assign what workforce to do who will assign what workforce to do who will assign what workforce to do what efforts for them what efforts for them what efforts for them which 600 million dollar stock trades which 600 million dollar stock trades which 600 million dollar stock trades their families will make to benefit and their families will make to benefit and their families will make to benefit and enrich themselves as they fly around in enrich themselves as they fly around in enrich themselves as they fly around in their private jets their private jets their private jets on the taxpayers money and we are on the taxpayers money and we are on the taxpayers money and we are watching it all watching it all watching it all before our very eyes as individual before our very eyes as individual before our very eyes as individual liberties are eroded liberties are eroded liberties are eroded i am fired up about it i see it i am fired up about it i see it i am fired up about it i see it happening you know sax is on the show happening you know sax is on the show happening you know sax is on the show this week you can't just take strays this week you can't just take strays this week you can't just take strays like that freiburg expand on who the like that freiburg expand on who the like that freiburg expand on who the politburo politburo politburo is yes so basically the the politburo is yes so basically the the politburo is yes so basically the the politburo is the leaders who elect themselves is the leaders who elect themselves is the leaders who elect themselves to dictate the flow of the economy the to dictate the flow of the economy the to dictate the flow of the economy the allocation of capital what work allocation of capital what work allocation of capital what work individuals are allowed to do and what individuals are allowed to do and what individuals are allowed to do and what what activities they're allowed to do what activities they're allowed to do what activities they're allowed to do in an unfree society which is what in an unfree society which is what in an unfree society which is what they're creating they're creating they're creating they are the true oligarchs and this is they are the true oligarchs and this is they are the true oligarchs and this is elizabeth warren bernie sanders elizabeth warren bernie sanders elizabeth warren bernie sanders rokhana this is the the group that is rokhana this is the the group that is rokhana this is the the group that is trying to coalesce power trying to coalesce power trying to coalesce power and create for themselves a system and create for themselves a system and create for themselves a system whereby they have greater influence whereby they have greater influence whereby they have greater influence greater control over aspects of the greater control over aspects of the greater control over aspects of the economy they want to seize the means of economy they want to seize the means of economy they want to seize the means of production they want to control production they want to control production they want to control education they want to control media education they want to control media education they want to control media and anytime there's an effort by an and anytime there's an effort by an and anytime there's an effort by an individual enterprise or an individual individual enterprise or an individual individual enterprise or an individual themselves to go out and build a themselves to go out and build a themselves to go out and build a business and succeed and do something business and succeed and do something business and succeed and do something that's outside of their scope and their that's outside of their scope and their that's outside of their scope and their span of control span of control span of control they lose their minds over it and they lose their minds over it and they lose their minds over it and that's what we're seeing so i react to that's what we're seeing so i react to that's what we're seeing so i react to their tweeting and their their tweeting and their their tweeting and their where they're basically trying to where they're basically trying to where they're basically trying to contort things about inequality contort things about inequality contort things about inequality and fairness and justice when the truth and fairness and justice when the truth and fairness and justice when the truth is they are the rising empire the evil is they are the rising empire the evil is they are the rising empire the evil empire in star wars they are empire in star wars they are empire in star wars they are the folks who want to take from all of us the folks who want to take from all of us the folks who want to take from all of us what we were endowed with when this what we were endowed with when this what we were endowed with when this nation was started and what many people nation was started and what many people nation was started and what many people came to this country for which is came to this country for which is came to this country for which is individual freedom and liberty the individual freedom and liberty the individual freedom and liberty the ability to build a business in peace ability to build a business in peace ability to build a business in peace the ability to make decisions the ability to make decisions the ability to make decisions to do what you want with your own to do what you want with your own to do what you want with your own assets and to have functionally private property. And they're taking it all away. And they're trying to take it all away. And we're watching piece by piece, step by step. So they are forming a Pollock Borough where they can effectively control the economy, control education, control the media, and tell us all what we can and can't do and say. And it's frustrating to me to watch it because it's masqueraded as bullshit virtue as justice as equity. It's a bunch of nonsense words that they use to try and make themselves seem virtuous when in the end of the day, they are fundamentally evil. And I hate watching it. So that's why I react so aggressively to it. Freiburg, I think you said something that's really important, which is they present it as virtue. That's right. Put yourself in the body of a person that's probably middle of the road ish, but is falling for it. Why do you think they're falling for it? Because they have needs and wants and desires individually, that this person is saying this system, this evil empire will give to you. If you take the knee, we will give you the education for free, we will give you the childcare for free, we will give you the food for free, we will give you the paycheck every week, we will give you we will give you we will give you those promises in a democratic system like this or in a fake democratic system like this, are what make people feel like the virtuous offerings will align with their individual needs and wants. And I think that that's why people say like, okay, that's good. Free childcare, free childcare for all, there is inequality in the world, there is disparity in wealth, there is disparity in asset ownership. And your solution, despite, you know, the loss of liberty along the way and the loss of economic mobility that arises from what you're offering, and this is really key. People don't realize the value of the United States, the power of this nation was to give people individual liberty, which which unlocks agency, to progress yourself, to educate yourself, to make yourself a better person, to make money, to give yourself more assets, and more freedom and more flexibility than you had. Economic mobility is the key to the United States, you do not get economic mobility, if the government is giving you a job or giving you money, you lose economic mobility, you become indentured to the government, everyone wants more, everyone wants something that they don't have. But the truth is that the more the government is giving it to you, the less you have mobility, the more you are indentured, the more you are enslaved. And the more we are limiting people's ability to move forward. And that's what's really so frustrating for me, is that people sign up to this to your point, Tim up, and they're like, Okay, that's great. I, I get to have this and I get to have that I get to have that. But at the end of the day, you're giving all of your liberties up, you're giving all of your progress, you become giving all of your mobility is what you're saying. Yeah, you're looking for them. And you don't have agency to pursue your own personal freedom. Yeah. One thing I believe to be 100% true is that no human being that's ever been alive has ever lived up to their true capacity as a human. Limitless, limitless, limitless. And the truth is, like, anytime that you create a system with the government that's giving people stuff, you are taking away people's agency. And so that is what is so so sad about the whole thing is like, human agency is the one thing that we have unlimited capacity, unlimited, infinite upside every human does. And to enshroud yourself in this government burden, thinking that it is a relief. Well, then that creates is what's so sad about this, because you're always looking to the government to solve your problems. The threshold for learned helplessness is far, far lower than one may think. I grew up on welfare. And my mother was initially a housekeeper. And then she was a nurse's aide. She was probably making eight, nine, 10 bucks an hour. My father couldn't get a job. So we were on welfare. And welfare was probably 17, 18 $19,000 a year at the time in Canada. And there's a family of five. But it was just enough that my dad just spent the cycle between drinking and not working drinking and not working. And he would try and bursts. And you know, I think that it must have been deeply frustrating for him, obviously. So I want to be compassionate to the struggle that he went through. But man, I would have thought that 17,000 dollars a day is not nearly enough support. And so it would animate you to try to do whatever it took. But could he have gotten a job making 8 910 bucks an hour at a store? He could have he chose not to. And so my recollection of being a ward of the state is that the threshold for that helplessness is far lower than one may think. Right. And then if you actually stack all these other things, people will just fall into their worst proclivities. And they will be a shell and a shadow of what they could be. My dad was in my mind, the giant who had all this potential, unfulfilled. And I keep that because I want a positive sense of who he was to me, despite all of the ups and downs and the stuff that he went through and how it negatively affected me at times. But man, if you want a whole country of those people, what happens when you're giving people 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, $80,000 a year of stuff? One, at some point, you're not going to be able to pay for it. But two, you're going to reduce people to a shell of what their potential is. And that is not good. I have lived it and I am warning all of you, be careful what you wish for. The flip side of it, by the way, as you point out, you can't pay for it. What ends up happening is the moment that we find ourselves in today. And we see it in and we'll talk about Pritzker's law in Illinois that passed this week. But we are now at a moment where we are saying there is no longer private property in the United States. This is one of the foundational rights that the founders of the United States try to create a distinction between these other nations that everyone flees from. We're a monarchy or a totalitarian. A totalitarian government or some communist system says everyone owns everything together or some small number of people own and control everything. And that's what this always comes down to, whether it's a socialist state, or a communist state, or a monarchy or some other totalitarian regime, there's a small number of people that own and control everything. And that is the brink that we're on because they are trying to say for the first time ever, there is no longer private property in the United States, that if the government can say everything that you've already paid your income for, you're not going to be able to pay for it. You're not going to be able to pay your income tax on. And then you've bought and you now own the government can take a piece of it every year based on the vote and the budgetary needs of an irresponsible fiscal legislature. We've lost it all. And that's where we are. And we see this just passed in Illinois. People think it's just crypto, just like they think that billionaire tax is just billionaires. But anytime the government can take your private property after you've paid your taxes, bought something and put it in your garage. We are done for. Yeah, we're gonna get in that is that is when we're going to be able to do it. And that's when we're going to be able to do it. And that's when we're going to do it. We're going to be able to do it. There's a big difference between stuff and then the machines that make this stuff. And I think, again, this is where wealth comes from, is the machines that make this stuff. So you go all the way back to hunter-gatherer days, right? The only wealth was in what you could collect, hunt, gather, whatever. It's basically the collection of stuff. Then humans developed the ability to create tools, and then very sophisticated tools. And then some of those tools are corporations, which are almost like cybernetic organisms or combinations of tools, workflows, humans work in them. And it's those corporations that make the stuff. And the way that people get wealthy is that if you create a machine that makes more stuff, then there's a discounted present value for all the stuff in the future that that machine might create. And that's where the wealth comes from. It's in the discounted present. It's not in the stuff. It's in creating a machine that will create stuff for humanity. for a long time. And people will put a value on it today because of all the stuff that it'll create in the future. And so just out of nowhere, it will appear that all of a sudden you have all this wealth created. But again, that wealth is a reflection of all the stuff that this machine will now create in the future. And people need to understand that that process is a good thing. Because when you think about all the progress that humanity has made, it's not in having more stuff. Because again, that stuff, it all goes away, right? Whether it's food or shelter or clothes or whatever, it depreciates. It's a wasting asset. The reason why humans are more prosperous is because of all the machinery we've created to make stuff well into the future. And again, that stuff can be things like shelter or clothes. It can also be medicines and cures and entertainment and all the things, electricity, all the things that make your life better. We need those machines. And someone has got to own the machines. And the people who own it are the ones who create it. And the thing that Karl Marx never understood is that it's not this sharp delineation between capital and labor because you can take people who start with nothing. Elon started with nothing. I mean, he was an immigrant to the United States. He came here from Christ. Yeah, slept on the floor at zip two. Yeah, he slept on the floor. He created these companies. He created these machines from nothing with his own vision and hard work. And he included thousands of other people. So here's the other thing. The other thing is just because you're quote unquote labor doesn't mean that you're not also an owner of capital. There's a great story about how there's a welder who worked at SpaceX, who I think has made a million dollars in SpaceX stock transformational. But everybody who's part of these companies, and I think this is the magic of the tech industry, it is much more inclusive in terms of ownership than any other industry. It's the magic of capitalism in free markets where anyone can participate in that market. Anyone can enter that market. And ultimately, anyone can transition from being labor to capital. Yes, it's fluid. It's back and forth. If you buy shares in a company, and you have the ability to buy shares. Or you just vest them. You just vest them with sweat equity. Or you start a business and you basically do work, save money, invest your capital, and continue to compound the capital till you get to a point that your labor is worth less than your capital. And that's what ultimately allows this economic mobility, this transition for people. And when you take that away, you destroy that capacity for mobility. That's why capitalism- Back to where we started today, yeah? That's right. And that's why- We started today with agency. That's why it's so frustrating to me to watch people denounce Elon's success and denounce the value that the world is putting on this business and on the success. Because what they're saying is that no future human, no kid that's sitting on a floor right now, sleeping on a floor that's poor, should have the capacity to achieve what Elon achieved. No one should be allowed that capacity to transition, to progress, to mobilize themselves. It's even worse than that, Freeberg. They're saying you should hate him. By denouncing him and by denouncing that, you are basically taking that ability away and you're saying that this is evil. And you're telling all these young kids around the world that are thinking about their future, that they are now indentured to a government or to a fixed income for the rest of their lives to perform labor for a fee for the rest of their lives, as opposed to having the opportunity to do that. And that is why it's not just about getting wealthy. It's not just about getting rich. It's about having agency to transition yourself and inspiring young people and inspiring young people. Yeah, it's a different kind of transition. No, you're transitioning from labor to capital by virtue of sweat equity. You have skills that are valuable that you can then translate into creating that's valuable. And just to underscore that point, I mean, you think about SpaceX, it's a machine that makes satellites. It's a machine that makes broadband connections from space. It's a machine that creates launch vehicles. AI software. AI software and so forth and so on. So it's a machine that makes things that people want and therefore enhances people's lives. And it's only the market, the public's value that it places on those things. That creates the net worth, that creates the value of SpaceX's stock and therefore the net worth of someone like Elon. But again, he doesn't have one more dollar than he had before. And to put a finer point on it, you have to earn that by continuing to make the best product in your class. The second Elon satellite, Starlink, is not as good as the next two or three competitors. And there are two or three of them coming right behind him. And there's other people doing rockets. And obviously, he's in a heated competition for LLMs. And with Cursor versus CloudCode, he's not guaranteed. He has to fight and he's had to fight to win each of those categories. And the second he stops fighting in those categories, he loses and all that equity gets cut, like we see when stocks tank because they cannot keep up. So he's had to fight for every inch by making the best product. Nothing was given to him. Everything was earned and earned by his team. This idea that he won the lottery is, is farcical. It's a 25 year overnight success story that had three or four distinct points where it was going out of business and he had to scramble. I've always thought that the people that rail on wealth are actually secretly incredibly jealous and want to be extremely worse. Because I've never heard a coherent argument about why when somebody achieves something that you should dismantle the things that they're building. And what you both of you said are so right. The vicissitudes of the market can make that number fluctuate wildly. There is a version of the market that has nothing to do with him that judges his stuff in the future as half of what they're judging it today. Nothing stops us from doing that. And all of a sudden, everybody who's breathlessly mad that he's a trillionaire, what do they say now? Because he wouldn't be a trillionaire. He's some version of what he was the Thursday of last week, right? Right, right. And, you know, just to extend my analogy, the machines become obsolete very quickly. You know, in a capitalist society, you can get disrupted. And companies get disrupted all the time. If they become stale or calcified, if they don't invest in maintaining and upgrading their machine, they will become obsolete. Improving value. And you know what can't get disrupted? The one unobstructable monopoly? Government. And that's the problem. Government is competing for capital and it's competing for markets and it's competing for all these things. And that's why I talk about these people as being evil. They're a politburo. They're basically trying to take away capacity for value creation to make things better. Every generation for a society, better medicine, better education, better livelihoods, better homes, everything gets better. But when the government monopolizes it, it doesn't. And that's the competing force that we're up against. Yeah. And I want to just add one thing to this, which is there is a piece of this that, needs to be solved, which is people wanted to participate in the success of these companies earlier. And Chamath and I interviewed the head of the SEC and he's working on this, but the amount of demand from retail, and it was a very innovative thing that Elon did and the team over at SpaceX, they gave 20 or 30% of the IPO to retail investors. When you opened up your Robinhood account, I don't know if you guys have one, or a Charles Schwab account, it gave you a lot of space X and you could put in your request, I think six or seven, I was talking to Vlad, maybe six or 700,000 Robinhood users got an allocation. It might've been one share. It could have been 50. That democratization needs to continue because the real, back to Freeburg's points about being a wage slave or an equity holder and trying to make that transition while people being able to open up Robinhood and just buy one or two shares and vote with their dollars for 150 bucks that they want this future, as opposed to other versions of the future. That's what gives them that empowerment. That's what gives them that agency. Well, what if they could do that earlier? And I've beaten this drum on this podcast and my other podcast for a decade on this, but people knew SpaceX, they were watching these rockets launch for a long time. And they would have placed that bet 10 years ago when the company was worth a hundred billion or 10 billion or 500 billion, but they weren't allowed to because we have a corrupt system in our government that says rich people, the top four or 5% of this country are smart enough to buy private company stocks and the 95% are too stupid to. And it's antiquated and it has to change and you should be able to buy whatever you want. If you want to buy crypto, you can. If you want to buy a private company, you can. If you want to play cards with your friends and play bomb pots and watch Dave Freeberg's rage quit because he keeps losing at bomb pots when we play, that's Freeberg's right. Let people buy private company stock. It's crazy that we still have this rule keeping poor people poor. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Can I take a shot at answering Jamal's question? Why are there so many people who are influential, who are resentful of what Elon's done or what other capitalists do? I think it was Joseph Schumpeter who explained this, that basically you've got this intelligentsia in a society like ours where they don't make things. They don't make the machines that make things. They just make words. And, you know, I guess ideas and most of those ideas are just raw. Right. They're just made up. And they become resentful of the fact that there are all these people who are able to create not just stuff, but the machines that make the stuff. Right. And that in our society, that is the thing that creates the greatest reward financially. Why? Because it actually aligns with what's in the greatest value for society, whereas they produce a bunch of hot air. So it's natural for that class of intelligentsia to become resentful. And hostile towards the people who are able to amass this great wealth. I think that the great lie is that there are two sides to the society that is the rich and the poor. And the great truth is that there are two sides that are the makers and the takers. The lie is that the rich are unfairly rich and the poor are unfairly poor. And therefore, the poor must take from the rich. But the truth is that it's the takers that tell you that lie. That the real truth is that artists, plumbers, electricians, woodworkers, computer scientists, people that build, people that make from all walks of life, all income levels, all wealth brackets are the makers. And the takers are what Sachs calls this intelligentsia, the analysts, the espousers, the armchair mechanics, the critics, the commentators, the politicians. They are the takers. They are the people that watch the world. And they are the takers. And they are the people that the rest of society make stuff, build stuff, specifically doing things that create value for other people in society. That's what a maker is. Tell my kids this lesson all the time. I say, what did you guys make today? They tell me something they made. And I'm like, did someone else value it? Or did you make it just for yourself? At the end of the day, if you made something and someone else valued it, you were a maker. That was an amazing achievement. That is a great day. Whether you make a piece of art, whether you build a house, whether you write a piece of software, whether you build a business, whatever you make, if you're a maker and someone else values it, they become your customer in some way, they become your partner in some way, you've done something valuable. Those are the true engines of progress for humanity. And the takers are the ones that tell the lie that it's rich versus poor. Because what they want to do is rip apart the makers. And they want to tell everyone you got to be on one side or the other. And they use that lie to get everyone to line up against each other and to give themselves ultimately the control to form the great American politburo, which is what they're trying to create. That is what's underway right now. And that is the fundamental great truth and great lie that we're kind of fighting against at this moment. All right. This broke shortly after we taped our episode last week. We tape on Thursdays, we drop on Fridays, as fans of the show know. Well, the US government has pulled the plug on Anthropic's latest model. You've heard us talk about that as Mythos. They released it as a controlled version called Fable 5. So there was Mythos. That was the one they held for 30 days while they were doing security. Cybersecurity testing. Then they released it as Fable and a bit of a guardrailed version of it. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Anthropic to restrict that model to US citizens last week. Last Friday, in fact, Anthropic couldn't implement those restrictions or wouldn't in that granular of a way. So they just decided to do something more conservative and shut it down for everybody. This, of course, created a lot of hand-wringing in the industry, rug pulling. Oh, my God, we lost this great model. And what does that mean if I build my models on top of Anthropic? Can I trust them? Yada, yada. And this was just days after the model was launched on June 9th. How this all started seems to be that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, who owns a large, Amazon is an early investor in Anthropic and they own a large portion of it. He had told the administration that there was a security vulnerability in Fable 5 that they were able to bypass to jailbreak the guardrails that Anthropic put on it. Dario said the jailbreak wasn't serious. There seems to be some finger-pointing, back and forth. And Dario said it was narrow. Separately, Semaphore, a publication, like an email publication, reported that the White House acted partially over suspicion that a China linked group had access to Mithos and they weren't supposed to. Why it reported that this group was South Korea's SK Telecom. Now you're saying, hey, how does South Korea have anything to do with China? Well, they have a longstanding, or there are longstanding allegations that SK has a previously ordered Anthropic to revoke SK Telecom's access to Mithos. They're kind of like the Verizon 70% market share for Telecom in South Korea. According to the Washington Post, Anthropic did not initially disclose it had given Mithos to SK Telecom. And this happened before all the export controls, quote, badly damaged officials' confidence in the company's ability to safeguard sensitive technology. Anthropic says the White House never raised the Chinese access in the Fable jailbreak there's a lot of finger pointing and perhaps nobody is closer to this except the principals and you, David Sachs. So tell us what is going on here. Is this politics and political between Anthropic and the administration? Is this a misunderstanding? Or is this, you know, the future of what's to come as these models become more powerful? Well, let me give you an update based on what I learned. This would have been last Friday and Saturday. So I'm going to give you an update based on what I learned. So by that point, I got a readout from various folks at the White House about what happened around the time that that letter was sent to Anthropic. And I then summarized what I learned in that long post on X. And no one told me what to say. I just listened to these various officials explain themselves. I also heard from, let's say, some of the private companies who were involved in this. And all I asked was, listen, I think this context would be my summary of what was happening. And whether you agree with the decisions of those officials or not, I do think that my post provides a window into exactly what they were thinking at that time. And what this comes down to is a couple of things. So first of all, like you said, Dario came to Washington a few months ago, this was back in April, and basically said that he had created a cyber weapon called Mythos. And he spiked the cortisol level, got everyone really worried. And there was some truth to it in terms of the sense that this model had advanced cyber capabilities, but he got everybody very focused on this problem. So mission accomplished. They then had this pilot program for Mythos, this trusted partners program. And as the Washington Post reported, Anthropic expanded the program to something like 50 companies or more without consulting the White House. And according to the Washington Post, I can't confirm, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this, but I don't have any reason to question the Washington Post's reporting on this. They did share Mythos with a company that the White House believes it should not have been shared with. So think about that. They're sharing these capabilities that Dario himself has said is a cyber weapon with parties that the White House, and really we're talking about the national security officials believe, might have connections to China. That's SK Telecom, according to these reports. I'm not going to say who it was. I know that's been reported. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that. I'm just reporting what was in the Washington Post. But you have to understand that that's the context. So first of all, you got Anthropic effectively conducting its own foreign policy here, expanding the Mythos preview to groups that the White House didn't have any knowledge of. And then once they found out, the White House, you know, this is really the role of what the White House wanted is, look, we have classified information that you don't have. We know that there are certain groups that shouldn't be getting this. And Anthropic expanded the pilot without consulting, which is, again, sort of bewildering because the whole point of what they were supposedly doing by trying to get this pre-approval regime was to consult with the government. So really, that was the predicate for this. And apparently, again, this is according to the Washington Post, that's when conversations started about whether a model like Mythos needed to be export controlled. Okay. Then you have the launch of Fable, which is basically Mythos with guardrails. Again, if those guardrails fail, then you have a cyber weapon being released to the public. And it wasn't the White House who came to the conclusion that the guardrails failed. It was private companies who were testing Fable, testing those guardrails. And as has been publicly reported, one of them was Anthropic's largest shareholder and cloud partner. And so, well, again, I'm not going to confirm, but I think we all can read the publications. Okay. So again, normally I wouldn't mention the names at all, but this is all widely reported, okay? event they i think tried to convey their findings to anthropic i think there was some sort of breakdown in communication i don't really understand but they felt the need to escalate it to the white house and it's almost like a whistleblower okay because they have no reason to lie about this i mean again they are anthropic they have reason to yeah i mean they're partners so that's even reason to support anthropic obviously sax they would have told anthropic first but the fact that andy jassy got involved in this at all means somebody on the team must have said hey on the security team at amazon who has to host these models said hey this is something that could be a liability for us amazon and could be a national security threat that's why andy jassy made that call because somebody put that into a slack room somewhere or documented it that could be they don't do things like that based on a slack room okay they had somebody in the security team reported it right amazon amazon is part of mythos preview and they are also testing fable remember they've got the biggest cloud to protect we're talking about aws they've got teams banging on this and making sure the guardrails are safe and as has been publicly reported they came to the conclusion that there was a jailbreak and that this was a serious security problem so they then escalate to the white house and again and this is where my summary takes over based on me hearing firsthand from these officials they try to call anthropic they try to call anthropic they try to call anthropic and there were a number of conversations and the tldr of it is dario refused meaning refuse their request to take down fable until this jailbreak could be fixed and again the white house was really just i think bewildered and confused by that because again it's so off-brand for anthropic they claim to be the ai safety company and yet here the white house is reacting to credible information about a major security threat from anthropic and they're not going to take down anthropic's own partner and instead of basically saying yes we'll react on this right away they get the heisman i mean just imagine this call apparently again reportedly the treasury secretary of the united states called dario personally i mean why wouldn't this be a five minute call why wouldn't dario just say yes sir we take security more seriously than anybody else we'll fix this problem thank you for taking the time to call us out of your busy day we're going to handle it right now click and instead of doing that you know what the administration did i'm not saying maybe dario didn't mean to communicate this but he sort of pedantically argued that this jailbreak wasn't really a serious issue and we know that to be true because you don't have to take the administration's word for it dario then published a blog post that basically conveyed the idea that well not all jailbreaks are that bad and trying to differentiate between good jailbreaks and bad jailbreaks minor ones major ones minor ones major ones whatever you know again very off-brand for them i didn't know until now that that was the way it was case remember this is all downstream of the fact that dario primed all these officials to view mythos as a cyber weapon and to view therefore fable as a cyber weapon if the guardrails failed and they already had problems with the mythos preview being overextended to parties that they didn't approve of so look i think maybe there's room in here to give dario some grace maybe he didn't interpret this correctly what have you but this was the way that the administration perceived the situation that they were in as of whatever that day was a week ago last thursday and they reacted by sending the export control letter because they wanted fable to come down until the guardrails were put in place now we're in a situation where anthropic is negotiating with the government to try and fix the situation look once you're in one of these situations it's always harder to extricate yourself than to avoid getting in them in the first place because the trust is broken the trust is now gone and look i hope this does get resolved as quickly as possible because i don't view what the administration did as a policy making exercise some people are saying that this export control letter is now a new type of policy now the government has to approve every model release i don't think that was the intention i think this was a reaction by the administration to a credible report of a national security threat and they felt that they had no alternative but to react immediately with the tools that they had available to themselves so i hope that this problem gets fixed and then we have a serious deliberative policy conversation about what the right hoops should be for models that are cyber weapons and reviewing those models which yeah let's pause there because we're going to get into model reviews and what's the best way to do that shamath what's your take on this situation uh in terms of maybe a little bit of i don't know your handicapping of the situation with the relationship with amazon i think that's kind of an interesting angle or if you have a different angle you want to take i think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired okay i think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity and i think that that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of ai maybe to connect the dots between this and what freeberg said i couldn't agree more with what he said the key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility and i think ai is the grand leveler it is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is and against that backdrop which is an incredibly positive sum of economic mobility and economic mobility and economic mobility and economic mobility and economic mobility and economic mobility and economic mobility and economic view of the world but i think is accurate we have to live in this constant doomerism hype cycle naivety and i think it holds us back how does it hold us back tactically number one it creates mistrust i think that silicon valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in american society when i first came here in 2001 it was a place of misfits that were good intentioned that were doing the right thing that didn't take themselves too seriously that in success wasn't ostentatious that kind of kept their head down we built important things then we veered away from that and we started building less important things and now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our shit together and the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one and so this entire episode is yet another proof point that you just can't trust these guys that's number one number two i think what it creates which i think is bad but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers and the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world not just america that they should be the gatekeeper a you can't trust these guys b these models are all over the place c let us be the ones that provisions them to the world we will wrap it in kyc i've been now talking about kyc for a while right who are these customers do they have identification why are they allowed to run these models what are they prompting let's keep them in the game let's keep them in the game so that there's an audit trail all of these things are going to become issues the frontier lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now and what does that create now that creates an oligopoly for ai the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers who by the way would make an incredibly compelling argument and they would be right and the only counterfactual to it would be trust us guys it should actually be much more open in a far more distributed environment it can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust kyc or the same vpc infrastructure that amazon and microsoft and google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in it's an impossibility jason so you can take all of those data centers off the map you can take all of the neoscaler market off the map all of this was preventable so instead of a diverse robust open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly they have created a total mess and it's a shame so instead of people just to summarize that instead of people being able to use the model they want from the provider they want you're going to have to put in your driver's license your tax id your social security number that's obvious to amazon web services or if you have to put in your driver's license to buy fertilizer you're sure we'll have to put in your driver's license to use fable 5 which is the precursor to know how to use fertilizer to make the bomb yeah as we talked about last week sorry last thing total own goal and then what does it do we in silicon valley yet again look like people that have just optimized for our own selves we take ourselves seriously we take nobody else seriously we're not willing to play ball it's unserious It's immature, and it does not help society at large. okay free bird there's been some talk about political tribalism here and i'll let you take this one anthropic the only company that doesn't seem to show up when president trump has ceos at the white house backed by reid hoffman who funded the lawfare against the white house gene uh o'carroll lawsuit this lawsuit that lawsuit there's major beef between the left and the right and anthropics in the middle of it is this the white house treating anthropic differently and do they have it out for anthropic and anthropic is basically handing him the ability to take these kind of actions in other words is this political instead of pragmatic and practical in your mind well i mean i think that there there's no regulatory framework today and so antagonizing the government to create a regulatory framework and then feeling antagonized when they regulate you just seems a little bit weird and anthropic seems to be the only one doing that so i don't know if it's a political motivation as much as it is like some strange set of behaviors from anthropic that that's motivating this perception look i think at the end of the day we're all losers if the government is going to be picking winners and losers in ai and we're all losers if we all have to be restricted on accessing these tools at the end of the day like i've said before you know an entire ai model can fit on a usb drive and you just need to have good hardware to run it and the value of that model is time bound because at some point a better model is going to come around so my point being i think we're all losers if there's one stack that one company owns the whole thing and we all have to put in our id and the government decides who's the winner and who's the loser none of us are going to be winners in that sense that's why i think that there's currently a natural market force for two things one is more open source and second is a fragmentation of the ai stack if you go back to the 1960s ibm was the predominant provider of mainframe computers and i don't know if you guys remember this or know this but like at the time ibm did the whole stack they actually made the chips yeah so all of the um you know the i think it was solid logic technology chips that ibm created were were made in-house they made the hardware they made the operating system they also made the software and this was the case through the whole mainframe technology era that ibm was the monopoly they had the whole thing and then ultimately the government had to intervene to get them to disaggregate the software layer and that's what actually started the independent software layer and that's what actually started the independent software layer and that's what actually started the independent software layer era which is when the software industry really started was after the government said hey we shouldn't have one company that has the whole stack in computing then we get to the 80s and that's when everything disaggregated then ibm started buying the intel chip for the personal computer they had their own os but ultimately microsoft came along and made a better os and then this entire proliferation of the software stack with independent vendors took off and i think that that ultimately is what allowed this industry to progress the productivity boom that arose from both mainframe computing and desktop pcs was because of this disaggregation that happened i think the same is likely going to have to happen with these ai companies and you know i'm not sure that what we're looking at today is being kind of some oligopoly of three or four businesses is really where we're going to stand i think the equivalent on the hardware side is there's going to be multiple chip vendors there's also going to be multiple clouds there's also going to be multiple models that run on the clouds people are also going to run models locally they're going to use different software factories they're going to use different software factories they're not just going to use anthropic they're going to use tools like salesforce and you know 80 90 and other things they're going to run different applications on top of it that are going to be purpose built or custom built so i think there's very likely kind of a diffusion that's happening right now if it doesn't happen it's going to be pretty nasty but i just think the market forces are so strong for a diffusion of each layer in the stack finding its way to the cheapest the more available the more accessible partner vendors that we're very likely going to see these kind of you know handful of oligopolies kind of break down a little bit yeah i that's my that's my take on this i'm not sure i think it's i'm not sure there's going to be a political capture that's going to happen it just seems very unlikely i'm going to steal man for the for the good of the pod and also a little bit of my personal belief here i think if we were to take anthropic's name out of their series of behaviors in how they handled the release of mythos let's just say we put grok in there open ai or gemini is a good one google they're not totally in the uh in either camp and it's a company that's been around for a long time so gemini comes out with a model when they test it it's incredible at hacking and cyber warfare and they say you know what this is incredible it's super powerful we're going to limit it to 50 partners and those 50 partners include microsoft etc they happen to have sk telecom in there they make a mistake they put them in there and we looked at them and we said hey holding the model for 30 days while they test it we'd say thumbs up good move and then one of their partners amazon says uh hey we were able to jailbreak this and they say okay we're going to put a couple guardrails on this when we put it out or let's just say second phase after they give it to their 50 partners and control beta they said we're going to open it to the public but we're going to watch every single thing you do i think david you said this is a privacy issue it's pretty standard actually for when you release something like this to monitor it for the first 30 days if you don't want to be have people looking at the results then don't join the beta keep using 4.8 don't use the newest one and so you'd say thumbs up to that as well hey they're giving it only to logged in customers and if somebody does something dangerous like they try to get it to do nuclear weapons or last week when i asked it about fertilizer regulation it dropped me out of the model right we would give a thumbs up to that and then if we were asked hey by the government to take it down for anybody outside the united states and we said you know what we'll take it down for everybody probably give a thumbs up to that too if gemini did it so there is a definite backdrop of beef between anthropic and this administration and if you look at the reed hoffman connection you look at dario who refuses to participate the people who go work at anthropic are the people who hate trump who hate the trump administration they're opting into that if you look at open ai and grok those are the people who are largely pro-trump uh including greg brockman and his wife who gave 25 million to trump so there's a political underpinning here in fact you may not be able to get into this i understand that but that's part of what's going on here i think anthropic actually did a really good job of rolling out this model and being conservative about it i think their comms are the problem every time dario talks it's too much talking and there's too much fear-mongering so somebody's got to fix the comms over there to your point chamath because the whole industry is gonna need to be regulated and i think the industry needs to regulate themselves that's the key to this we need to have a set of tests that google microsoft amazon all agree to elon hey these are the things we should test and they should self-certify each model before asking the government which doesn't understand the models to certify them the industry should have an industry certification like they do for countless other things i've talked about the mpaa and the video game industry we should just self-certify it's the simplest thing in the world to do and then we could release the models ourselves without the government getting involved anybody else have any thoughts on this before we go on to our next topic well let me just respond to this accusation you're saying that this is somehow politically motivated there's just that's just not true look there are anthropic aligned influencers who are trying to spread the story that all this is basically a beef between me and anthropic they're trying to say that somehow i did this which obviously is untrue i don't have the power to do it i'm not a day-to-day employee of the white house and i only got the read out of this once the letter was sent so you know i wasn't involved secretary of war pete hegseth he wasn't involved people trying to make it sound like this was a beef with the department of war just not true this happened as a result of the things i mentioned which is they got a report of a jailbreak dario had the chance to fix it he basically said no maybe that's not the way he thought he was communicating but that's what the administration heard dario doubled down that blog post and had the prior history of expanding the mythos preview to at least one company that the administration felt was a national security threat that's the reason it happened it has nothing to do with the beef and by the way it was the people in the administration who were most sympathetic to dario and anthropic who wanted to reset this relationship after the department of war and then dario basically blew it yeah that's with those people so look i mean you can just make stuff up if you want i'm not making it up just you know i'll take offense to that sax because it's your guy pete hegseth who is doing tweets like this three months ago department of war kicked anthropic out of the building forever every passing day proves why this was the right move i'm not making anything up here there's serious beef between these folks look at the date you're saying that like this has nothing to do with this read the tweet that was after the letter was sent check that the time stamp i get it no no it's totally fine there is beef between anthropic and the administration to say there's not it's just so i didn't say there wasn't a prior history i'm just saying that that wasn't the reason why this happened this was not a dispute between anthropic and department of war this was not a dispute between anthropic and me we were not the parties who were involved you're involved in it i didn't say that but neither Department of War. Now, what Hegseth's tweet reflects is he feels vindicated. There's a sense of vindication that, hey, we had a really difficult time with these guys when we did a contract negotiation. People may have thought that we were the difficult ones. In fact, we said they were difficult and communicated in a strange way. And now everybody else can see it, too. So I think what Hegseth is saying there is like, hey, we told you so. But he did not make the decision here. This had nothing to do with it. And look at the timestamp of that. It was after all this whole series of events went down. If I'm a shareholder in Anthropic, I would have told Dario to show up every time Trump had the CEOs over there. And I would have told somebody in that management team to drop a $10, $25 million check into some ballroom or some America, you know, pack, just like Greg did at OpenAI. He really didn't need to do that. All he needed to do is that when a cabinet. Secretary calls you and says that we have a credible national security threat report to us by one of your own most trusted partners, that he take it seriously. I mean, he took it down. How more seriously can you take it than taking the whole thing down? He didn't take it down until after they got the letter, which was the whole point. Yeah. Anyway, can I jump in here? Please jump in. Yeah. I had Claude read Machines of Loving Grace and AI Policy on the Exponential. And then I asked it to do. What is that? Those are his two. Long form essays. Darios. Darios. Just to be clear for the audience. Yeah. And I asked it to do a psychological analysis. And well, no, I'm not joking. I mean, I think it's important, you know, and use these as insights into his personality and give me a psychological analysis of him based on these, as well as based on the current facts on the ground with mythos. Be truthful. Don't protect simply because you are an anthropic model. And then I asked it to do a psychological analysis. And then I asked it to refine through the lens of EAC movement. And tell me if there's any psychological leanings. Do you want me to read to you? EAC movement, just so people know, is the accelerator movement to accelerate society and technology as opposed to decelerate. Okay. I think people understand. Yeah. Can I read this? Okay. Two paragraphs. Delusions of grandeur. No, well, I'm not saying it to make fun of him. Look, he's built an incredible business. The shareholders, I think, are doing phenomenally well. I think the revenue run rate of this business continues to accelerate. All of it's incredible. But I want to understand this person. I am paying millions of dollars. And so, you know, I just want to understand. Here we go. Okay. He distrusts other labs, positioning them as racing recklessly. He distrusts authoritarian states because he says they will weaponize AI. He distrusts markets to distribute the gains. He distrusts institutions to move fast enough. And post-mythos distrusts the government to wield power, quote, transparently and fairly. That's a very long list of untrustworthy actors. The list of trustworthy ones is conspicuously short. And it has a suspicious tendency to resolve towards people who reason the way I do, operating under the rules I help design. When your safety framework requires that someone hold the keys and your analysis keeps concluding the other key holders can't be trusted, you've built a machine that outputs me no matter what you feed it. IAC would call that a God complex. The more precise term is epistemic exchange. Exceptionalism. Not that I am superior, but more my reasoning is the load-bearing one, and the failure of others to reach my conclusions is evidence of their corruption or slowness, not of my error. That's the genuinely concerning pattern, and it's worth naming plainly because it's the engine of the dangerous version. Once you believe your judgment is the uncorruptible reference point, every conflict gets recoded. Government overreach isn't powerful actors have to be transparent and fair. Losing the Pentagon fight isn't a negotiation he misplayed, it's evidence the system runs on leverage instead of reason. The mythos collision is we shipped a dangerous capability and a hostile state reacted predictably. It's a misunderstanding. The word his company actually used. Notice that misunderstanding presumes that if everyone simply understood correctly, they'd agree with him. That word choice under stress is the closest thing in the public record to the tell. I think that's a good thing. It's not megalomania. It's the quieter, more defensible feeling conviction that disagreement is downstream of error. I thought that was really interesting. I mean, I think I think it's like super accurate. I mean, look, there's no question that anthropics whole mantra and actually Ben Thompson pointed this out one of his pieces is that they believe that AI is super dangerous and only they are virtuous enough to basically control the negatives of it. I mean, that is basically their view on it. They're the Jedi. They're the Jedi. They believe that they will bring balance to the universe and that they are the ones who can adjudicate all of these rulings. Yes, they believe they're superior to everyone else, which is why they are a magnet for talent. Now, what I would say is I don't think that they have a particular problem with the Trump administration per se. What I would say is they got spoiled by the Biden administration because they had totally captured the Biden administration. And the proof of that is the leaders of the Biden administration's AI policy, not just one of them, but all of them went to go work in anthropic like the minute the Biden administration was over. I'm talking about officials who were in charge of AI for the NSC, the ones who were in charge of the new AI safety institute, which was something that anthropic basically set up under the Biden administration. The person who is my predecessor effectively as AI czar, they all went to go work at anthropic. So there's no politics going on here. Except it's incredibly tribal. Okay. No, I just think that they got used to the fact they, they, I mean, they were incredibly organized for a startup and prioritize government affairs from an early stage, maybe before any other AI company. And I think Dario went to Washington very early on and convinced key officials in the Biden administration of this idea that AI was extremely dangerous and needed to be controlled by the government in some sort of like merger between the government and then a very small number of hand-selected companies, two or three of them. It was that message that Mark Andreessen heard, which is what caused, remember this, when he went to go meet with the government and they said, don't waste your time investing in different AI companies. We're going to anoint the winners. There's only going to be a couple of them. We're going to create a cartel. I think the way that anthropic describes it is that they describe competition between AI companies as a dangerous race condition, meaning they all just start racing towards AGI. And therefore safety falls by the wayside. And they want to centralize and control. They see competition as a nefarious force. So they want centralization. They effectively want to create a cartel. And that is their view of AI safety. Now, you can see how they could see it in their language as being virtuous. But if you see it from the point of view of what's really happening, which is they're trying to create a monopoly or duopoly or cartel, it's incredibly self-serving. And that is the danger. And I do think that a fundamental philosophical question is whether you think competition is a good force or a bad force. In my opinion, competition is a good force. It's what protects consumers. It gives consumers choice. It also brings out the best in competitors and prevents regulatory capture. It balances the power too, right? You don't have one person who you're dependent on. Yes. And it has a greater chance of leading to decentralization. I think centralization is the greatest threat of AI, right? You don't want it to become a totalitarian force. So there's a fundamental ideological difference here. But look, you have to say Dario was incredibly successful at resetting the conversation with mythos. You go back to, I think it was April, and they had just been kicked out of Department of War because of that unsuccessful contract negotiation. And then all of a sudden, they come to Washington and declare they've invented this cyber weapon. And they basically freaked everyone out. And they got everyone to basically go along with their idea of some sort of government approval regime. And it's only because I think of their own, I don't know, you could say, hubris, hubris, or they misplayed it. Yeah, their delusions are hubris, and they misplayed it. And it ended up getting kicked out under their own nascent pre-approval regime. Hey, Freiburg, just one last question for you. If we do tip over into super intelligence, and it becomes like cataclysmic for humanity. And we look back on this conversation, what would have the right thing to do been for the government? Again, there's this important force that needs to continue to maintain its strength, which is to avoid the natural instinct to control this stuff. This happened with the desktop computing revolution and the mainframe computing revolution. Do you guys know there were like, articles published in Newsweek and New York Times in 1961 that talked about the demise of the workforce because of the computer? Yeah, I said, we've now automated everything. Humans are irrelevant. No way. It was an existential threat in the media at that time. And what happened, the mainframe computer drove productivity, every individual that worked was able to do 100 times more work than the same thing happened with the desktop computer. And that also enabled economic mobility, and it enabled productivity gains enabled new industries. And everyone said, when that happened, this is the end of the workforce, no one's going to be able to get a job anymore, everyone's getting replaced, it's over, we've got to retrain our entire workforce. In fact, the federal government did this deal in the early 80s, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in workforce training That literally did nothing. And it was all about, oh, my God, we got to get our workforce ready to transition to the desktop computer industry. You know what ended up happening? People figured out. It wasn't that difficult to turn on a Windows PC, right? And companies figured out how to help employees navigate and transition to higher levels of productivity by taking advantage of this new technology and these new tools. The same thing is going to happen here. So this whole notion of AGI wipes out everything. And this is the end conclusion. There's a deep arrogance to technologists, a deep arrogance. And we know it. It's what drives all of us. But that arrogance always leads to these existential conclusions. This will cure all cancer. This will solve all disease. This will eradicate all jobs. None of us. And by the way, no one's immune to this arrogance from Elon to Sam to Dario to all of us. We all assume that this time is different and everything's about to change completely. And you know what? It doesn't. We're all part of this long term continuum of technological and productivity improvements driven by human ingenuity, which unlocks human potential and gives humans more capacity to do more. And it's awesome. And there's no job loss and narrative, you know, end of the world. And that is driving us all into an insane frenzy. Everyone needs to chill the out and just let technology do what it does. These companies need to stop doom trolling. They need to stop doom trolling. Do you see that New York Times op ed? Look, this is all downstream. This is all downstream of the fact that these AI CEOs have been scaring the daylights out of the public with respect to AI. It was totally unnecessary. And by the way, Jake, I just want to say one other thing, which is I am not happy about this result. I'm not happy about the fact that Anthropic is in this predicament. Why? Because I don't like the precedent. You know, I hope this does not become precedential. I don't want policy being made out of this. I don't want policy being made out of these types of emergencies. I trust it won't be. I hope this won't become the basis for policy. I hope it's a one off. Do you think they should regulate themselves? As I've been saying? If you go back to April, here's the thing that's really crazy. Okay. I just saw that Dario did this interview with Bloomberg, you know, Emily Chang. And he said that by not releasing mythos in April, the company suffered massively commercially. You know, he's acting like he's doing this great and noble thing for humanity, this great sacrifice. If he had to release mythos with no guardrails in April, he would have exposed the company to massive legal exposure because thousands of companies would have gotten hacked. And it would have been very easy to say that was a foreseeable consequence of releasing mythos with no safety features, no guardrails. Look, right now, Meta is being sued. They just lost a multimillion dollar verdict because a user accused them of body shaming. Meta and Google are both being deluged with product liability lawsuits right now. So you're telling me that it was this great sacrifice? That you didn't release mythos when it was patently unsafe back in April? Of course you had to include the safety features. Of course you would have exposed yourself to liability that could have put you out of business. That is just good business practice. That is corporate responsibility. You shouldn't deserve this giant pat on the back. And you didn't need to go to Washington and freak everybody out like this. I mean, you should have quietly done it. And by the way, the hyperscalers, if you look at their balance sheets, the hyperscalers are out over their ski tips. They have trillions of dollars of on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet exposure to AI. The best thing that they can do to underwrite all of that money is to kneecap the frontier labs and play gatekeeper, charge a toll, take a tax. It is business 101. They're going to say they're the adult supervision. And by the way, as far as the front. Regulatory capture 101. Yes. That's not. It's not regulatory capture. Yeah. Well, they're creating a market opportunity for themselves because these companies have doom-trolled their way into it. They've doom-trolled their way into it. Yeah. They can't police ourselves. Give us a policeman. That's what I'm saying. Regulatory capture is when you surreptitiously in the dead of night swoop into Washington and introduce some bill as a Christmas tree ornament in a Christmas tree bill. This is literally the exact opposite with the same outcome. I agree with you, Jason, which is you bumble your way into getting kneecaps. Kneecapped by everybody around you. No, no. I guess that analogy would be they literally walk themselves into prison and hand the hyperscalers the keys and we're like, please lock us up. They close the door. They close the door themselves. They lock. They threw the keys out the window. Yes. We're locking ourselves up. All right. The Iran war might be ending. After 110 days, President Trump has announced for the 37th time that the war has ended and that the initial agreement on June 15th will be codified. A lot of details here. A lot of unknowns. Conflict began, obviously, on February 28th. Formal signing happens Friday, June 19th in Geneva. Deal was mediated by Pakistan. Extends the ceasefire for 60 days. Includes a Lebanon ceasefire. U.S. gets the Strait of Hormuz reopening, which it was open before the war, obviously. Iran commits to not developing nuclear weapons. Iran agrees to destroy its stockpile of enriched uranium under IAEA supervision and that they will. Let's review this deal. Number one, it reopens the Strait of Hormuz. That means all the oil will flow and all the other vital materials that are necessary for the global economy. So that's number one. Number two, we have a commitment from them not to pursue a nuclear program and to collect all the nuclear materials. Number three, there's a ceasefire of the war on all the different fronts. Four, this will not cost us a dime. There is a reconstruction fund, but we're not paying for it. I don't see why that's a problem for us. Who's paying for it? I guess it's something that the Iranians will do in combination with the Gulf states, but it's not, the US is not on the hook for that money. We're not paying a dime. And then lastly, this could lead to a rapprochement with Iran, which I think could be a good thing because I don't think we need to be at war with that country forever. And look, what is the alternative to this deal? I'm seeing a lot of people, it's easy to take potshots and criticize the deal, but what is the alternative to this? I'm hearing neocons who basically want us to put ground troops in and try and effectuate a regime change in Iran. This is what I'm hearing. I heard John Podoritz say this. I'm hearing other neocons say this. I mean, are you serious? Are we really going to escalate this war by putting ground troops in? Who exactly do you want to go fight? What I heard John Podoritz say is, well, we have a volunteer army, so they signed up for this. No, they didn't. They signed up to protect America, not to go charging into Iran, which is basically a mountain fortress. I've heard estimates it would take over a million troops, and even then it might not be successful. We send half a million to Iraq, and Iran is three times bigger as a country, and it's a mountain fortress. So that would be a suicide mission. That would be insane. Nobody wants that. I'm not sending my kids to fight that war. You don't want to send your kids to fight that war. If John Podoritz and the neocons want to do it, let them send their kids and their family. If Reza Pahlavi wants to go to Beverly Hills and muster an army from his legion of supporters, let him try and do that. I don't think they will sign up for it. I think they're living too well in Beverly Hills. Nobody wants to fight that war. That is the alternative here. So if we're not going to send in ground troops, and we're not going to continue the bombing, because what's the point? We already flattened every military target above ground in that country. So what is the point of continued bombing? We won't do anything. Then we might as well, hold on. My point is, if we're not going to send in ground troops, because it makes no sense, we're not going to continue the bombing because it makes no sense, then we might as well try what's war number three, which is a deal here that will try to create a peace. Remember, we're only at the MOU stage of this. But let's give peace a chance here. I don't understand these people who just want this war to go on forever. Haven't we tried that before? The forever wars of Iraq and Afghanistan? We're really going to sign up for another one of those? I don't think so. So look, it's easy for people to take potshots at the president here. But I think this is by far the best of all the alternatives. The MOU has been the enrichment of uranium to the point that it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Is it part of the deal that all that enriched uranium that we do know there's a stockpile of gets removed from the country? Because if that goes, I personally feel very good about let the citizens deal with what they have to deal with. That's what they've said. This is part of the MOU. They will not only agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon, they will give up their nuclear material. That's a big deal. All that enriched uranium comes out of the country. I think it's a That's a very big deal. Even if they restarted the program, even if they resourced the equipment, rebuilt the intelligence to do it, etc., etc., it's going to take years to a decade to 15 years plus to build enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon. That would kind of be the natural setback, if you will, that provides some defense for the conditions that we really care about. I didn't realize that was in the deal. I thought the deal was just that they would make a, quote, commitment to stopping a program. But if all that enriched uranium is coming out, that's a really big deal. Well, they still have to define it. Again, this is at the MOU stages, at the level of high-level principles. They have to define exactly how that program is going to work. But what they get in exchange is relief from the sanctions, and they get a more normalized relationship with the U.S. Yeah, yeah. There's an incentive there for them, if they're willing to basically give that up. You have any take care you want to check in or not? I think the market's going to the moon. I'll just add, I'm glad if this gets consummated. And it was a huge blunder for Trump to do this. And obviously, he's trying to get out of it. Should have never done it. But here we are. And I hope it resolves. And I hope the people of Iran are free eventually. Do you think it's worth it, J. Cal, to have gone through what we went through over the last couple of months? If all of the Iranian enriched uranium is gone, their missiles are depleted, and they have no capacity to enrich uranium again? I mean, I. Just looking back, like, if you just put this all together summarily and said, hey, like, there was this big war and the stuff that happened and all the. It's a great question. I mean. The loss of water. The loss of water. And, like, suddenly this real risk of nuclear proliferation. As I've said from the beginning of this, we don't have complete information. So, you know, for a venture capitalist, capital allocators, entrepreneurs can speculate all they want. But we don't see what Trump sees, right? So, you have to be humble enough to know we don't know what information he had in all of this. But the trimming of the grass, the hedging, you know, of the garden approach that Israel had been taking all this time, that was the right approach. Isolating dictators, waiting them out is always the better approach than starting full-scale wars with them. Because you don't know what could happen in an escalation. So, simply not worth the risk. Much better to just send the air troops in and clean it up. And we did not need to, you know, go collect this, you know, material, obviously. Because we have these bunker buses and we can just slam it every X number of months. And that would have been a much better approach. Just like we've contained North Korea for all this time. And, you know, we contain other dictators with weapons. North Korea hasn't been. But I know that. What are you talking about? No, no, but we've contained them. And we actually did have this discussion with Graham Allison about, hey, why didn't we contain that one when we had a chance? That was a mistake by other presidencies to allow them to get this far. And then once they have it, it's really hard. And in this case, it was working very well. Every 18 months, we bombed the facilities. It was fine. We didn't need to start a full-scale war. And we're probably going to just wind up where we were at the start of all this. But I hope that at some point, the people of Iran. The people of Iran are free. That's my, you know, true hope. But people have to. We can't enforce democracy in the Middle East. We've learned that over and over and over again. The people have to take, you know, they have to lead their own revolution. We can't facilitate it. All right. Listen, another amazing episode of the All In podcast for your sultan of science, the dictator, and the rain man. Yeah. David Sachs. I am the world's greatest moderator. And we'll see you next time. Bye-bye. Love you, boys. Bye-bye. Oh, man. My avatar will meet me at place. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. Wet your feet. The beat. Wet your feet. Your feet. Beat. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. Merchies are back. I'm doing all in. I'm doing all in. Thank you.