星链雷达效应与超级智能峰会：技术突破、监管协议与社会责任探讨

Jason Calacanis: Another huge one, thanks Starlink. How am I? Do I sound now?

Chamath Palihapitiya: Actually, great. Impeccably. This is shocking.

Jason Calacanis: This is amazing. Nick, show this frame for behind the scenes, what do we need it cost everything launch. Starlink is just space. This is incredible.

David Friedberg: Do you want to learn something about the Starlink network, which, as me, just now becomes famous? Essentially, Starlink network, because she radiates radio waves, maybe them to catch, and because satellites so much, you actually get phased array antenna telescope looking to Earth. And you can to reveal from above what otherwise it would be stealth- by air.

Jason Calacanis: So, you're saying that this UFO detector?

David Friedberg: This is a stealth detector airplanes. This is, in essence, Starlink. This could be UFO detector, but Starlink network actually turns into incredible radar system that located above The earth and looks down on things that would usually be invisible from Earth's surface.

Jason Calacanis: So, this means that we don't need to do scientific work column today, because Did you just do that? Nice to see you, Sachs. As one of Bretton Architects -Woods 2.0, Saks on rise. He is in full swing. So, congratulations to everyone, Welcome back to "This week" in AI. Sorry, All-In podcast. And we have a lot of news that needs to be to discuss in...

David Sacks: You are an idiot.

Jason Calacanis: I mean that every week it's AI on AI and again AI.

David Sacks: You have a show called "This Week in AI," and you are nothing You're talking about AI.

Jason Calacanis: No, no, we are covering AI, but thanks for advertising. This Week in AI.ai. Subscribe to mailing list. "This week in superintelligence". I am going to change. name. "This week in Chat DJ. I will say that we have here four superintelligences. We have four here superintelligences. Two superintelligences, news of the week intellectually are discussing big news. Yes.

Jason Calacanis: AND What a week it has been. We were just sitting here a couple of weeks ago, or in Los Angeles, I had I would say, and was a moment of some chaos. Hey, do we have to conduct an audit or slowing down with everything this AI? And in 3 weeks President Trump held a summit with superintelligence in Washington. Many Who were the "besties"? there, or three or four, I should say. On Tuesday President Trump gathered the largest names in the field of AI. Elon, Jensen, Zack, Dario, Sundar, Satya, and so on further, and so on. Everyone in turn, and also government representatives. I I could talk about this for a long time. to speak, but Sachs, y I have this feeling, that you played a key role role in the organization this. So maybe I I'll just pass the word on you. Tell us how. it happened so fast and what is the result this summit on superintelligence.

David Sacks: Well, the reason why it happened so fast, is that President Trump gathered all these people in the White House, and I I think he is the only one. a person who could gather everyone general directors of these companies in one room. I have on meaning that these are leading companies in the world industry centers data processing, microcircuits, hyperscalers and, of course, advanced models. And many of them, frankly saying, doesn't like each other. They have disputes among themselves. We all know this. IN they can be lawsuits one to one one. All this was not enough value, because President Trump called them to the White home for this conversation. And I called it Bretton Woods superintelligence. It it was the first meeting really everyone key players in the entire industry stack. And I think we had really good, open and honest conversation as if about opportunities, and about risks superintelligence. And in as a result of that meeting, I would say during the meeting, we developed this agreement, which became known as White House Agreement regarding superintelligence. Then it was signed six big ones companies that are engaged in advanced models. And I think that now we let's apply a new one severity and new set of controls to development superintelligence, to the public was more confident that that it will be done safely.

David Sacks: And if I I can just highlight several key features. Therefore, first of all, companies, who develop these products, recognize, what are they carrying responsibility. They must be responsible subjects. Let's don't translate it to someone else, not to anthropomorphize models and not to speak about the Organization United Nations. These companies accept responsibility, number one. Number two, they agree to have an internal control and check this internal control special internal team. But we are not just we leave it at "self-control." It starts with this, but then they appear external auditors, which will confirm and will check that internal control works. And these companies will create an independent council committee directors, which will receive these reports. And as noted Gavin Baker this morning, you know when you're happy directors receives external report auditor, you are not you can ignore this. This is not optional. Council directors has huge fiducial duty to act accordingly. Otherwise their policy insurance responsibility directors and officials may be annulled, or wrong? So, now board of directors will receive a report external auditor, and she has to make sure that supervises safe development advanced technologies. And, in the end, after all this is what the FTC and SEC stand for, who have the opportunity and duty provide public performance obligations of these companies. So, although this the deal was concluded voluntarily, management, which follows from it, is not voluntary. Now this is actually a requirement.

Jason Calacanis: This is critically important. moment. Because this audit, and for those who not familiar with the concept of D&O is insurance responsibility directors and officials, which has a board of directors in case something happens It will go wrong. So, this is has real power. Although it was voluntarily, it has profound impact on board of directors.

David Sacks: That's right. And only one last moment: this White House deal regarding superintelligence was initiated president. It is in as a result of this we are discussing achieved that large companies signed it, and I I think it's in the room. there was complete consensus regarding this. And these control measures can be implemented already now or very soon. And it doesn't need new legislation. This is certainly not needs a new one international agreement. This never happens. will happen. So this is can be done immediately. I think so. thanks to the president, and I think that's significant will decide to what extent many problems that are worried public regarding safe development superintelligence.

Jason Calacanis: Certainly. AND I think that now many Democrats don't want to give due to the president, because they want continue use this as an election issue. But the reality is, which, in my opinion, the president coped with this quickly, intelligently and practically. It much more practical than to try to announce a pause in developing advanced technologies, which China never agree, or to create some "DMV" for models.

David Sacks: Yes. that again will slow us down to to the extent that China simply wins. So this is very practical and immediately, and the president deserves recognition, although Democrats him him will not be provided. But I I note that even Jacob Coxon, where you know, you can say that all this as it were yes, I call him after six weeks, who worked with PR- company for Yes. Yes. I would call its fake whistleblower, because he worked all the time with a PR firm, although said that this is not true.

Jason Calacanis: Artificial informant. Or artificial informant.

David Sacks: But listen, even he said he was glad it was read. He gave due to the president. So, maybe everyone others have to do same.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Cynical Chamat, looking at this, would say: "Wonderful first step, right? If you just wanted to a global UN for AI, that would be great predecessor, first step by step, when everyone agree to regulation, on self-regulation, as we discussed in this podcast with by analogy with the MPAA. And here it is we have been here for three weeks

Speaker A: because. Take us away behind the scenes. It was one notable thing addition to the group AI leaders: Dario from Anthropic, obviously, very tuned against Trump. He never showed up at such events. Organization at 96% anti-Trump, left-wing views, etc., but he took part. So, like Dario finally took this participation? How is he? ended up at dinner face to face with president? Immerse us in these palaces scheming.

Speaker B: Dario was conscientious objector . He didn't want to take participation in all this . And now he was in the center of attention. I can tell you that what I heard, and I think it's indicates that how conscientious and kind president . It seems there was several previous ones events. He noticed that Dario was not invited, and really simple called and said: "You know, this "There was an oversight." AND invited him to dinner. And I think that that's how it all started, and they had dinner, It seems like two nights. before that. There is a lot about this. wrote. And then he stayed and was on dinner.

Speaker B: So, I think, This is very clever. strategic move. It it was also very conscientiously and very politely, just to make sure that before involved in this broad coalition people. And I think that this general model behavior that the president demonstrates . Allow tell me more a few things that happened at dinner and they did it to me impression.

Speaker B: First sounded like a very a simple statement, but its importance grew in my mind, when I thought about it. He says, "Who will win?" superintelligence, that wins." And then he just fell silent. It was the first line of it prepared speeches. And then he said it again. AND when you think about it, He is absolutely right. Not there is such a world, where will you have this multinational the body of people who are trying to distribute victories and defeats in this case. This is the scale industrial revolution.

Speaker B: Actually, Sachs expressed several great thoughts on dinner, where he called this is even larger than industrial revolution . He gave the numbers, according to which it is more than industrial revolution and three or four more phenomena taken together. It something even more. Railways, canals and power grids together. as well as pyramids and Great Chinese the wall too. It Well, they wrote about it on Wall Street Journal of the past week. If you look at this at such an angle, then very important for us to win. So he started with the fact that outlined the general the picture just like that.

Speaker B: He remembered a few more specific moments, in particular that extremely important demonstrate positive examples use of AI and now SI. And he said that you are responsible for leading implementation of these advantages. And then added that you also you carry responsibility for impact on local communities in which you working. He brought example Meta as company that makes a lot of useful things, in particular pays bonuses for teachers and supports hospitals. We heard about it from Dina at the All-in summit. And he said that you should keep doing these things. But in the meantime we must have deterrence mechanisms and counterweights, trust me, but check.

Speaker B: After I had to have lunch. fly to Orlando because we have 890 long-term partnership with Ernst&Young. And I spoke before their 3,400 partners. One of the things that Ernst&Young and 890 were involved , was the creation integral audit infrastructure for superintelligence. The coolest thing is that we developed it for EY as for our first client. But after this, I think, we can we take this infrastructure and to offer her to everyone, as Sachs said, because it will be needed to everyone.

Speaker B: And in fact there are three things you need will be useful in the era superintelligence, to boards of directors were protected, CEOs had full visibility, and everything else infrastructure compliance and company management, such as insurance responsibility officials, remained in force—this through-and-through traceability, right? That is, when you deploy superintelligence, you must understand that is happening. You need to link this with rules so that be aware of the risks . All companies have standard operating procedures , but you need to know exactly how deployment superintelligence complements your standard operating procedures . So you need to match policies with risks.

Speaker B: And the third— you need to have evidence that can be to check, that is a way to show everyone your ecosystem: here What did I do? So if someone will touch you on the shoulder, whether it's a lawyer, whether the auditor, or regulator, is it in within the jurisdiction claim, or the client asks: "Hey, how's it going?" happened?" you can to present something. It very practical things, and it can be expected that companies like EY, now wide and fast will implement this for all your customers. This is just one an extra step, but if you think about it, how It happened quickly— in just 3 weeks we have this solution, then as an alternative was suspended trillions of dollars GDP so that we can to deal with this in multinational organ. Alternative was crazy. So I believe that what it happened—this historical and important event.

Speaker A: Was there any resistance? regarding the Dumer narratives for backstage?

Speaker B: Jensen was very convincing. He said something like that alarmism without solutions are unproductive.

Speaker A: Hmm.

Speaker B: I think it was useful grounding, but he added that alarmism from solutions is useful. Honestly, everyone in had a room the same point of view.

Speaker A: This remark was directed by Dario?

Speaker B: It was said. in general, but I think you know, if we I had to guess.

Speaker A: This is a distraction. Or Dario replied after this?

Speaker B: I mean, he said, you know, we are from Susie sat up straight. opposite him, so it was very interesting just watch by his reactions in general.

Speaker A: Please tell me. more details. What was it like? his reaction to this comment?

Speaker B: Well, he just listened.

Speaker A: Got it. Who moderated? discussion, Sax? How is this? moderated? You were moderator? I noticed that not received an invitation.

Speaker B: The best moderator in the world wasn't there, but Trump and pretty good himself moderator.

Speaker A: Who moderated?

Speaker B: The president moderates this.

Speaker A: Is the president moderating? He is really active moderated?

Speaker B: Oh, yes. No, no, no. He example of it moderation. I would like to make a few notes. Well, first we came there, it was in the East Hall of the White home, it seems, and through the back East Hall you get to where will this new one corridor to the ballroom halls. So, we spent a quick tour, and he showed us that they are building. And this really impressive. And I I predict that when

Speaker A: new ballroom?

Speaker B: New ballroom and the new East Wing in The White House.

Speaker A: You must wear helmets and go to construction site?

Speaker B: You are on place. We went there, and, well, there were cranes. They were there. They reach a record high progress. You know, this The thing has seven floors. So, myself the ballroom is two floors, but she goes five floors down.

Speaker A: Wow, wow. So they build there all sorts of things for army.

Speaker B: Sauna? No, no, no. For the army. There are all kinds of I know. There are all kinds of storage facilities there. that they need. But in any case, he is about to finish this is about a year from now, in within budget and for schedule. By the way, When it's ready, I I predict that it will be so beautiful that all future presidents will want use this. AND these are things that were the White House needs for a long time time.

Speaker B: They will look back. back and say: "Why they were so annoying "Does he have to do this?" Yes, by the way, it's still and distraction. What do we have in the White House? was a builder, who just like this to do and which is very skilled at this. I have I mean, why not? take advantage of these skills? All on...All on annual dinner there. We will have a gala evening. in... Yes, in any case. , this will be great renewal. So, he gave us a little excursion, and then presided over the conversation. At first he spoke out speeches to the whole groups, and then

Attendee: ...started to invite people to express one's opinion. And he always moderates these things.

Host: What was the most difficult? It was a difficult moment, when you are with someone... Did you argue? Some additional question? Something like that?

Attendee: Well, he just asked people what they think. It was a few clarifications, and then we had a session of six companies—developers of advanced models—in Roosevelt Hall, it seems. And right there we worked out this agreement. Although it was already in developing this agreement...

Host: ...you literally sat there, they printed it in Google Docs? And who is responsible for this typo? There was an error in the tweet version, which...

Attendee: Yes, I don't want to say who is responsible for this, but if this is the only thing people can do to complain, it's not bad at all.

Host: That's bad enough. Was Satya at Microsoft Word and just typed too fast?

Attendee: But I don't know. But actually, what happened was that Zuckerberg and Jensen discussed the main principles during the main meal. And then Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, received a copy and read everything from beginning to end. Then we discussed this, and achieved general agreement and understanding. And then there was a working group where we a little polished wording, although, honestly, little. Everyone felt it was convenient. The White House had a statement that was in advance sent to groups, it consisted of a few paragraphs, but, frankly speaking, this other statement was more to the point. You know, the original statement contained provisions about responsibility and creating working groups for permanent discussion of security issues and exchange of advanced experience. But the innovation became internal control, external audit, and creation of a committee under the board of directors. And, you know, I think it is already publicly announced, so I reveal no secret: Zuckerberg, and then, I think Jensen too, came up with this idea. And all of this was arranged.

Host: Were there any noticeable moments when someone said, "Hey, I want to put here someone or a period," or "I want to add something here"? Any notable edits?

Attendee: As I said, people generally accepted that approvingly, they read, and all of them are like this: "Yeah, you know, Elon..."

Host: What do you think will happen to be the most effective for increasing security? If you…

Attendee: Audits. External audits.

Host: Who then will conduct external audit, as do you think? This will be something like Ernst & Young? PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG or…

Attendee: These should be professional auditors, not these non-governmental organizations. This is my opinion. Soon you will see how EY will make a statement.

Host: Friedberg, when you look at the speed at which everything happened, and you, probably now in the Council of Science and Technologies to the President, maybe you can tell me how fast this is happening and what could be the impact on American competitiveness? Because you heard: perhaps, slowdown here means that China will catch up with us. So, maybe you tell me a little about their predictions about whether it contributes to unification of all companies. It is also worth noting for the audience: Sam Altman wasn't there. His partner Greg was there. So, Sam, I guess, was involved in launching some new products. But OpenAI, obviously, was presented there. Maybe you could tell a little about how, in your opinion, this will affect the American public and their attitude towards AI.

Friedberg: Look, I think we always assumed in science fiction novels that the era of robot wars would come. And we did not take into account that software will appear first. And we actually now have AI wars. And there is a war in which we are now, where one party seeks to centralize control, manage, to regulate—whatever the term—this technology. And there is another side that, I think, realizes the reality of this technology, namely, that it is actually omnipresent. We already talked about it before: through open-source distribution of code and open-weights models, because it is possible to run models on small local machines without needing huge clusters, we see model after model appearing that does not fall under the jurisdiction of centralized systems. Therefore it becomes very difficult and practically impossible to actually regulate the development of this software. It is the truth. We have what we have. You may not like it, but it is. And these two sides will continue to struggle. I believe that risks will increase.

And since this is happening, I will make two predictions in answer to your question. First, I think we will see massive growth in protection systems. Unable to turn off open models code or close all data centers or centralize command and control. On Earth there are 197 countries. Each of them has sovereignty. Energy is everywhere. All of them are connected to the internet. Data centers will exist throughout the world. Therefore, an attempt to centralize and manage control over this software provision, as per me, is a useless matter. But I think that due to growing risks, it will require reinforcement of protection. Therefore I think that companies like Palo Alto Networks, and investments in this area—what I heard in Washington this week from CEOs on the Fortune 50 list—they are very worried about cyber defense. It means that they will start doing this as their main priority for discussion at the board of directors level. It means that budgets for cyber defense will grow rapidly.

And now, allow me to give you a question. When you need to provide cyber defense in the era of artificial intelligence, will you use outdated software or artificial intelligence? Obviously artificial intelligence. You will use artificial intelligence. And therefore, because cyber defense will need development, the US should provide competitive artificial intelligence for cyber defense. It is a classic arms race scenario. Therefore, the US cannot simply step aside, take a pause, and turn off artificial intelligence. It is already everywhere in the world. Therefore, the risks are growing. Therefore, we need to increase investment in artificial intelligence to support our cyber defense capabilities, both at the corporate level, on the government side, and perhaps even at civilian consumer levels. Therefore I think that the necessity of cyber defense actually requires us to continue data center development for its support.

Friedberg: Second, the forecast that I will make: I think in 12–18 months we will move away from conversations about model governance, model adjustment, control, evaluation, scoring models—all that is happening now—because, as we mentioned last week, every 11 days appear new models. It is incredible. And Google released a week ago its new model, which, it seems, is more productive than any other. And every day we see how new ones are coming out. So control systems of models will not solve the problem.

I think eventually what will happen—and this is a forecast that may not please everyone, but I think that we will find ourselves in a world where governments will regulate access to data centers and their usage. They will say: data centers exist, but in order to support defense capability, we will decide who to allocate a certain number of GPUs, a specific amount of compute, a certain amount of chips or servers; because in the end one of the key indicators of cyber defense will be: how many machines do you have allocated for protection of your systems against how many machines are attacking your system? And this is again a classic arms race scenario. Assuming model convergence, and even if some models have small advantages over others, it seems that we will keep the pace. And if we keep the pace, then the number of machines allocated for a specific task will be the key indicator of how well it is being done compared to another set of machines that do the same task. You just will need to allocate for this more machines. Therefore, if you are...

Speaker A: going to allocate for this more cars, eventually the government will say: "Wait, wait, wait, Wait, wait. To us it is necessary that financial system The US received X% of all graphics processors in America. To us need make sure Y%is going on defense. To us need make sure that Z%..."

Speaker B: You mean that all this will be nationalized and distributed from above?

Speaker A: I think it's right here. regulators eventually will be forced to play their role. You can perceive data centers as communal services, that is, how cloud, neo-cloud. In fact, the government will eventually say: " Wait a second, we we highlight not enough for JP Morgan . We highlight not enough for financial system". And finally, the number machines are distributed ...... will take care of it.

Speaker B: Yes, this is a possibility. sell to the government. Now Google, Amazon Web Services, Crusoe or whoever can just sell more servers. And then The government can say: " Hey, construction more quantity data centers now exist question national security , and we will clear for this way."

Speaker A: OK. That's right. So, it's inevitable.

Speaker B: Yes, here is a part of it which I agree with. Block the data center, if we need it . It would be like block tank construction during the Second World War II, right? Yes?

Speaker A: Yes, here is a part of it which I agree with: it's not just about the capabilities of the model, and in how much computational you have the capacity to launch it. And we we want to have more computational capacities than ours opponents. And if we will continue this crusade against data centers, we will find ourselves in extreme disadvantageous situation. We already we know that the basis for data centers there is energy production, and China doubles its network every decade , while we have it remains unchanged already about 25 years. It a huge problem. I looked at the story 20th century: United The states doubled your electricity grid every decade. Exactly That's what we did. We actually incredible increased generation energy, and these were times when America was big industrial empire and in fact dominated the world in production and industry. We have there were no problems with hereby. We found ways to do it. It is obvious that power plants somewhere were built, and found places where they did not meet too much resistance from the local side residents. They found a way to do this make. Think about it. about this. Everyone 20th decade century, approximately until the 1970s, when pace a little slowed down, power grid doubled every ten years. In the 70s growth has begun slow down, but lasted, and only for early 2000s we actually went out on plateau. Why is that? Through deindustrialization and globalization we moved all production workers places abroad, people moved to work in offices, so we less was needed energy. Efficiency also played a certain role, but we lost something doubling skill our power grid every ten years. We must return it. And again, this witch hunt against data centers, which I see now is so wrong. Listen, date- centers already exist long. Data centers serve Internet. They provide work all mobile applications on your phone. Now they serve AI, but they serve all computer the needs we have we use, and accuse them of for some specific reason— completely absurd. If you are bothered questions like surveillance or privacy, then, of course, step up laws about privacy, right? I completely this I support it, but try ban date- centers for rent madness.

Speaker C: Sax, what everyone interesting. You were quite critical of Anthropic Computer Corporation and, in particular, to Dario and company management . He was on this. west. You seem to be met for the first time. Tell us about your participation Dario, or Did you discuss your criticism of his address, or regarding organizations, as well as all this talk about " "Dumerism", effective altruism , wasn't it mentioned? ?

David Sacks: No, listen, I think... that Dario behaved Until then, calm down. It it's true that I met him personally for the first time. We talked earlier. on the phone, but he behaved with dignity throughout event. It wasn't. hostile or conflictual. Of course, he has own views, and he expressed them, but in general, everyone arrived agreed and signed this agreement.

Speaker C: shook hands with Dario?

David Sacks: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, he was joking. He said: "Oh, my enemy" . You know, he's a certain I was joking.

Speaker C: Oh, really?

David Sacks: Aha. Yes, and I mean, the fact that he grabbed him from behind and said: "You must to speak out. "I think that was enough I forgot to invite him on the podcast, but he can come to any time.

Speaker C: phone number, and whether are you going invite him to podcast? The world wants know.

David Sacks: If you want me to do this did. But look, I think it's good that he talked to president and had dinner with him. I I think that the president must communicate with all the main ones players in this field. He has to hear the whole thing. spectrum of opinions, and I believe , that the president, you know , will reach the correct policies and decisions. So, I think that's good, that he listened to Dario .

Speaker C: I mean, listen, Are there any details? about what happened on that dinner? What was it like? the president's opinion Trump about Dario?

David Sacks: He said that he interesting guy. Were some interesting quotes, and he pulled it out of back rows during press conferences and pushed forward.

Speaker C: I I saw that you were right behind him. Zach was right behind him. You, guys, a little laughed.

David Sacks: Well, we had president, who pushed him forward. No, we actually, I I forgot exactly what...No, no one made fun of Dario. Simply No, no, I don't know. I am not I know. I didn't have this. in mind. Yes, there were conversations aside. grabbed him from behind and said: "You must to speak out. "I think that was so cute moment. It was movingly. I took it as a manifestation affection—that which he wanted Dario became part of the group and spoke on her behalf . I took it as contrary. Yes. Yes, he clapped. him on the back, and look, listen, Dario is very special man. You know, I don't to the fullest extent appreciated it while we not everyone gathered in that room. Obviously , in that room was a wide range of opinions. There are different levels, yes, there are autism spectrum. In that The room was full. autism spectrum, and you felt very comfortable, Sax. Well, I mean, you you call me " "Rain Man", but, as on me You are a light version of " "Rain Man." I don't know. I have on mind you, I don't want to to offend, but, you know, Dario is something on like Dustin Hoffmann in that room, and Tom Brown— as the character Tom Cruz, who tries it to interpret. They are not were in the same costumes or something , but " Hey America, China, Rosie, meet the my mutants, good? I am forming here. something like "People" "X", understood? It real smart people. They are a little weird, but they do the work for America. "

Speaker C: Chamate, in You were definitely there. interesting time. Tell me us a little more about these palace intrigues. What was the mood like? President Trump?

Chamath Palihapitiya: He gave up. incredibly involved and excited, and I I just want to say: "Listen, you don't must be a fan of the president Trump or Republican, to to appreciate what is here happened. "AND compare this to that as Biden ruled out Ilona from the summit on electric vehicles. As President of the United States, you must to be bipartisan and involve everyone in such things. We all— part of one teams. She called "Team" America, and I believe that was wonderful comparison. There was many people who extremely critical treated administration, but they were there to make America stronger, so that help America to win the race in AI industry, racing in superintelligence. Most people already they talked about it, so this is a kind of transfusion from empty into empty, but he is political athlete of the generation. I I mean, I don't think so. that we saw someone similar to him. Therefore, he is extremely comfortable feels among all

Speaker A: types of people with different views, and he is conscientious. So, when he sees that something is wrong, he fixes this and talks to as many people as possible in greater quantity people. And I think you must be real amazed by this. It incredible model, which, I hope, will survive it: the idea is that when you have a very complex problems, you use industry as a platform for discussions, sit down with representatives industry in real time and develop these deals right on the spot. And when this industry represents the whole political spectrum, as you said, Jason —someone with you, someone against you, and someone in the middle—this the right way management, in my opinion opinion because you have best chance to do something permanent and realistic. And this takes us back to the point that is lost : who will win the race for superintelligence, that wins everything. And I think, if we just we will remember this, this is the model that, I hope it survives. President: when would you did not encounter any how difficult problem...and I would said this: who would not have become president in 2028 and beyond, democrat or Republican, that's not It matters. Collect the smartest people from this industry in one room, make sure it's there are like those who you supports, and those who who can't support, and then discuss all this and form a set realistic principles, around which everyone can build a business. It very smart politics and government management.

Speaker B: I just wanted to return to what you said earlier, because I discussed this with By Phil Deutsch. It concerns the issue processing centers data. He expressed I have an opinion, which, on In my opinion, there is very important. When looking at the impact war in Iran for the price for oil, the most interesting The conclusion was that how insignificantly the price has changed for oil during all these blockades in Strait of Hormuz. Because in fact a significant event occurred supply disruption and generation, right? We were able to in the mode real time, Jason, correct, how to generate energy. And the real one conclusion from my point of view view is that, what generation electrons actually is critically important, not necessarily energy generation, as we talk about this traditionally thought. So why is this? important: center data processing now becomes key symbol national security . Because the ability generate electrons , and then the ability to ensure that we we will be able to calculate resources needed for functioning our economy, will begin exactly of these things. And therefore internal energy production, I think there is also extremely important a thing that will pass from internal affairs politicians to the question national security . And that's why I think, what is the issue of centers data processing and that why do I disagree with Fribourg. I understand. Where does he come from? because that's why the data center will be under so vigilant supervision, but I also I think that will happen. the opposite, which is more corresponds to the idea Sax about free market. Because this so important, like before we reacted after wars in Persia the bay and how we reacted after global war with terrorism that we did you do it? We doubled and tripled their efforts in natural gas extraction gas and domestic oil production. Similarly, I I think internal production electrons becomes so critical, because the data center becomes this infrastructure national security , which is so important .

Speaker C: Yes, it was so wonderful. video for many years because where Milton Friedman was in law school, and the guy put him a question: about that, "When we have responsibility to act to save someone's life, maybe the government obliges me to do it, and not this is taking mine freedom in the free society?" "And then, how did the guy ask that? , Milton Friedman replied: "Hey, you started by talking about yours responsibility in society, and ended with that Are you telling me that? "the government should do." "AND he is like: "I would say that these two things are not "one and the same." "AND the main thing to do to pay attention to: you no government is needed to to decide your problems when society gives you a clear signal that there is correct and what is not. What people collectively can and will to decide their own problems, act, choose the right one way, to do the right things, and business can and will be answer accordingly, when the market is telling them something, when society tells them something. They don't the government needs to was responsible for performing actions and took self-regulation for their sake. And I think, we saw this this week with the launch of Nvidia, and OpenAI clearly stated about what they are doing more cautiously before model release, but this morning Google also launched SynthID. AND SynthID is a system for protein labeling, created by with the help of AI. So sequence, DNA- sequence that encodes a protein, now will actually have in watermark yourself. AND she is wide is being implemented. And myself protein, three-dimensional protein structure, will also have built-in water sign. This is actually quite amazing technology that Google developed ee for creation of water signs and systems protection in bio-AI. And I I think we are starting. to see how the market actively reacts to the fact that speaking society, and not requires intervention these government officials. And in put everything into the process under threat.

Speaker A: By the way, I saw that one clip. He also became viral. I thought, that he is young man—I don't know, why did I watch this. Yes . It was a student. legal faculty. Young the guy was eloquent. Milton Friedman was incredibly eloquent, as always. But Jake, What was your opinion? I'm curious about you. thought, watching behind this in real life time. What were you thinking about?

Jake: Yes. Well, ironically, but me for the first time invited to the White home. My friend Joe Gebbia, who is this week launched america.gov which was impressive launch. We do American government just as effective, as well as the private sector . He is the co-founder, eh -there are, Airbnb. Co-founder of Airbnb and incredible designer . He studied at RISD from with their e-e partners . So, simply I pay my respects to him. If you haven't seen it yet America.gov, he stunning. No, I spoke at panels with Brooke Rollins and Sean Sankey on this event. It was incredible event. The whole thing came. cabinet. The President signed executive order. AND even people like Andrew Ross Sorkin, pronounced the whole a speech about why this is so important for America. It was no politicized. It was just an update technological infrastructure America for citizens. And it was fantastic. .

Speaker A: Yes. By the way, sorry, Jacob, I'm sorry, I'm interrupting, but I I want to thank Joe, because he did this work for oneself funds. People think, that it was some kind of large state investment. I didn't know about that. This is it Yes. Joe and others invested personal funds and spent their personal time, despite success in private career, to join and do this is for America. And I I think it was incredible call to all technologists unite and to create something great for America. And it was A truly wonderful day. It was great to be there. Sorry, continue.

Jake: No, no, everything is fine. WITH side it looked like incredible. Simply it's amazing to see the power all this American industries together. Not criticism, but additions before that. I think next element this puzzle— start engaging in this Americans, the lower part of the K- similar restoration. Where in Is this all a teacher? Where is the teenager that going to college? Where, you know, American worker, plumber etc? You know, from many sides Americans still have it seems a little frightening. So there's still What to work on? I flew on a Delta flight, flight attendants asked what I was doing I am doing, we talked, and they said: "I'm so scared this AI. I am so happy. that I am retiring because I don't want to lose. work, etc."

Jason Calacanis: Americans are still frightened by this technology. They still think that they will lose their jobs. They still think it is so dangerous. So I think this is great, the first step, but we need to do more to return Americans from this edge of the abyss. And to us it is necessary, and I think this is where the president—or the next president—could have a really important influence: start forcing American companies not just to think about how to earn more money, how to get more "green lights" for their data centers, and how to have less regulation and more free market, but also: how will it affect education? How will this reduce the cost of education? How will this contribute to housing construction? How will this help health security? How can people get more medical services, you know, at a lower price? About this, nothing was said. This does not mean that I criticize this event, but this is the next step. Next time, when President Trump gathers such influential people, they should talk about American society, not only about data centers.

David Sacks: So, a few points. He really asked people to do just that and demonstrate some of these things, and he was very specific. He did so, and also said: "You must show direct positive impact on local communities in which you do business." He was very frank. It was extremely straight, and it was one of the first things he said.

Jason Calacanis: Hmm, I want to complement your other opinion. It wasn't at all obvious. Real criticism from the public, which in my opinion is correct, consists in that it looks as if we were just helping American companies. I want to talk about it. What billionaires and companies do—I don't want to sound like Bernie Sanders—they have to figure it out themselves. It would be great if they started doing something like what Facebook did with free tools and training; we need to see more like this. And I think that housing, education, and health security are what Americans will start to appreciate.

Chamath Palihapitiya: I told you that right after lunch at the White House, I flew to Orlando, because Ernst & Young was having a two-day field trip for all their partners. Okay, but listen to that. I am not going to call the name of this person, but it's a very famous person in the Democratic Party. They were on stage. They had a whole speech about "Doomerism". And they relate to this so frivolously. They actually included people in the hall in their statement, saying that all of them will be left without work. And I'm standing there behind the scenes and I think: "What are you talking about anyway?" Ahem. This is not based on details. This is not based on data. This is not based on facts. This is a very famous person, theoretically very knowledgeable about what data should show.

Jason Calacanis: Name the name.

Chamath Palihapitiya: But what do you understand... Well, I'll tell you, but maybe we'll bleep it... I then thought: "What the... What is happening at all?" And therefore, to your remarks, Jason, this is very involved. I was talking about this last time on the podcast. For people who are not currently in power, that is, for Democrats, there is an extremely important incentive to pick up this call to Doomerism, because it is a very simple way to scare people, and then convert that into power in the midterm elections and in 2028. So you will see this will definitely bring votes.

Jason Calacanis: Yes.

Chamath Palihapitiya: No, when I went out on stage, the first thing I did was say: "She is wrong. And that's not true." What's more, everything points to it: all the data shows that work, job positions, and tasks will only increase. And I said: "People in this hall will earn more money in the next 4 to 5 years, not less." There will be more work, more space for judgment, and more taste that must be shown. And so I have a real problem with this narrative, because I consider it fundamentally false, not based on facts confirmed by data. This is the result of political calculation that Doomerism is a way to ignite distrust and dissatisfaction, and then use this in elections. I understand this as a political tactic, but I think it's important to talk about it openly. That's why I say that we are in the state of AI wars. I mean that this is a real war. Robot Wars will not happen. This is a struggle right now over who will actually receive technology and progress, and who doesn't.

Jason Calacanis: Well, who benefits from this, Friedberg? Who will benefit from this, huh? Rich people, poor people, or middle class? People don't know that this is open source. Nobody knows what an open weights model means. Nobody understands anything like this; they are looking at the rich in the White House, and I agree with you, J.K. I think the social perception and public narrative around this is: "I don't understand. I see a bunch of rich people who hang out with the president at dinner and make decisions in which I have no impact. I don't even know what is happening. I don't even know what they do. Then I turn on the news, TV, I go to Instagram, and everywhere it's only about how tomorrow the end will come. So I'm completely tuned out. No problem."

David Friedberg: That's why I think it's important to discuss why open-source AI source code and open weights are useful for everyone, because no company charges for this digital technology. It's like the internet. We saved the internet open. It was a great struggle. People forget what we fought for with the internet. When the internet first appeared, there were many attempts to privatize it and create "gatekeepers." Telecommunications companies tried to become such "watchmen" and charge different amounts of money for access to various websites. You couldn't just go to Yahoo or AOL if you didn't pay their due to the operator for access permission. But we made that illegal. We made the internet open. And I think the same thing happens now with AI. People don't see this struggle, this war which is intensifying. But there is a group of people who, supporting the opinion of Chamath, understand the political value of regulatory control and seizure of power. They are fighting to create barriers, control systems, and, finally, new power structures. And we fight, we oppose the other side. This is where the whole problem lies.

And that's well organized. When you visit these places, do you understand that extremely successful people are pushing clearly stated theses which lead to thoughts about the apocalypse? You understand how extremely deliberate this is. And then, you know, those of us who work in this area and see that the positive benefits far outweigh the negative, and that people are earning more than before at all income levels—we are not as organized as they are. This is what I can say for sure. I think positive messages about superintelligence and economic benefits are not spreading as actively as gloomy forecasts, because those advancing from the top down are very organized and repeated, and therefore Jason's flight attendant has these talking points. So, they win. And by the way, these talking points were given to them by Dario. This thesis was given to them by Elon when he said that you will no longer need to work. Those theses were distributed for discussion. Now they are trying to change them. I think there is still work to be done. Next time, best advice: Leave three seats, Sacks. Ask Sal Khan. Invite someone who represents, for example, teachers. Invite someone who represents the sphere of healthcare. Invite someone sensible, not from business, who could represent other interest groups. Leave a seat at the table for people with whom, you know, every American can identify, who will say: "Hey, yeah, maybe this will help my child when I find a tutor for her." For example, Sal Khan would be an ideal example, Khan Academy. Sacks, do you have any final thoughts before we...

David Sacks: Well, I wanted to expand this conversation on the...

Zach: economy as a whole, because I really am I think that pessimism affects perception by people economy. Yes, that's why I'm talking about That's what I'm saying. Yes, and I think that actually for the last appeared a week or two ago a huge number economic data, which indicate that economy significantly stronger than about her think. So, yes, I am I know that the prices for diesel too high, and the stakes are high, but this the only two indicators, that you constantly talk about you hear. Let's let's look at some other numbers that just appeared because I believe enough of them extraordinary.

Zach: Therefore, first, GDP per the second quarter was viewed sideways increase to 2.2% from 1.5%. That is, it is actually 50% growth. Economists do not expected none views. First the quarter was also viewed sideways increase to 2.5% from 2.1%. And if you look at growth in the third quarter, it is significantly exceeds these indicators. Atlanta Fed GDP Now shows about 3.7% as of the end last week. Just data was released about number of workers places in August: plus 162,000. Consensus- the forecast was only 55,000. So, we ahead of waiting for 107,000 jobs. Data for June and July were also looked to the side increase of 55,000 in general. So unemployment is still at record low equal to 4.1%, despite the fact that that the level of participation workforce increased by 0.2% to 61.6%. So, good ones labor market news , good news about GDP.

Zach: The economy is working actively, and also good ones appeared inflation news. We saw that core PCE index amounted to 3.0% versus expected 3.3%. Therefore, inflation is still a little too high, but she actually slows down and surpasses expectation. And finally , if you look at production, we we see a huge wave reindustrialization in this country. Several of these indicators are Chicago PMI index, as well as production index ISM activity—both they are confident are in the zone growth and surpass forecasts.

Zach: There is one more. point: let's go Let's talk about it for a moment. poverty because I want to refute the idea of that it's just K- similar recovery. So, if you look for income households in USA, then he is now on record high equal. Median income households in dollars in 2025 is almost 90,000 dollars. And the income households after payment taxes again grows during second term Trump: he is on average 3.1% per year for Trump-47, there were 3.9%for Trump-45, and minus 1.2% on average for four years of Biden's term. So, we see that income households after payment taxes increased by 3.1% only in 2025, and poverty level in the USA fell to the lowest level in history. 10.2%. So, you know, the level poverty level child poverty— all this is historical low marks. Real income average households after inflation and paying taxes increases for the first time in many years.

Zach: So, there is many strong economic data, and I think that's why if I had to guess, I I actually think that Republicans will show the best result on by-elections, than predicted some surveys. For I believe that illumination economics in the press was very negative, but I think people are beginning to feel, what is the economy is accelerating, and this, by the way, it was headline on Wall Street Journal only a few days ago: economy now is accelerating. Therefore, again, you have this AI boom. You have development infrastructure, which, again, for in the words of the Wall Street Journal, greater than construction railways, canals and electricity networks together taken. And all these things in basically fuel the strong economic growth, and again, I would denied K-shaped narrative, because the poor receive benefit, as well as average households.

Speaker A: They don't do that. feel, but, You probably know, I understand these sentiments. I agree with you. The mood is not yet caught up economic reality, but I I think that's it. will happen. We have a problem with rates. For the last 30 days or so that, right? We saw, as short-term rates for treasury bonds increased by 60 basis points . This is quite significant. growth. I think we never seen such high short-term profitability since 2002. So, this is massive rate hike, obviously, will affect people's opportunity refinance housing, buy a new one car or to buy things in credit, and this applies to the majority Americans. And I I think that ahead we are waiting for economic challenges due to a problem with rates. I would say, as always, that root problems with rates lies in the federal government and his crazy ones expenses.

Speaker A: If look at the impact these rates on banks, so I worked with ChatGPT, my reliable analyst, financial analyst in my office to find out, what it will actually be like the impact of these rates on banks and what will consist asset impairment. There are 4295 banks with positive self capital, which monthly report about your balances to FDIC. In accordance with actual reporting the balance sheets of these banks, about 95 banks will encounter depreciation of more than 20% of their capital for the last 30 days or about that. And these reports will begin to be published 30 October. So I am very What worries me is that on October 30th we will see all these financial statements from all banks and credit institutions. AND about 95 of them they'll say, "Hey, we have depreciation of one's own capital by more than 20%." This is going to be huge. shock, and then what will there be consequences? Exactly then we will begin to realize that the problem of rates is not only a problem purchasing capabilities consumers, it can to cause an effect dominoes in the economy, starting from financial institutions. So, they publish their next menstruation reports for the period that ends 30 September, October 30. AND, unfortunately, this coincides exactly with election cycle. So a lot will happen shout: "Hey, how bad everything is, while we try to go through these election?" So, Zach, I I don't know if there are any. thoughts on how solve this problem with rates, but the situation is quite unpleasant, and she will have some impact.

Zach: I immediately admit that we we have two negatives problems in the economy. These are the prices for diesel fuel and interest rates. But then I moved to arguments that why are there so many other positive economic news, which are not really are highlighted. Look if compare rates with at nominal rate economic growth, then these two indicators from sometimes have high correlation. You see, what is the economy like now very overheated, and this one of the reasons rate increase, because it is necessary to provide people real profitability. You know, if inflation at the level of 3%, and GDP growth—3.7%, then and the rates will be high. Listen, I think that's all. rests on the price of diesel, because it affects not only prices at gas stations, but also at production costs, and transportation costs are laid in the cost of all goods. I think if we will solve this problem, prices for fuel will fall, inflation will decrease, and on this basis we we will be able to get lowering rates. Therefore I think this is the last one. puzzle piece. I believe that the economy is already again shows very good results. 2.5% in second quarter, 3.7% third, but if we let's add this last one dash—I'm not saying that there is no more work— the economy will take off, as rocket.

Speaker A: Yes. I believe that the conditions there is for this. You are right. However, the problem federal spending everything still remains. It's almost like pouring acid on everything . You have a wonderful growth, and then these appear huge federal expenses that, as we we both know, there is ineffective; it creates an artificial employment and leads to a pile negative consequences . But, man, if we will not reduce spending to deficit in 3% of GDP, as I said Scott Bessant, these rates only will grow, and this will actually become shooting oneself in the foot . It's almost like

Zach: Well, you know, we all we agree that expenses—this long-term problem, and it bipartisan. We

Speaker A: ...must solve it. I would just say that six months ago people prophesied: if gasoline prices will jump on us stagflation awaits, as in the 1970s. This is not happened. Instead, we see extremely an active economy, and yes, gasoline prices a little high, but, to things, for Obama presidency we had over 300 days, when the price of Brent oil exceeded 100 dollars per barrel. So people forget, that our economy is already demonstrated success for a long time at the same fuel prices. Just diesel prices a little too high, and this related to oil refineries factories. Frankly saying it would be good, if Zelensky stopped beating Russian refineries. This is not helped to solve problem. But, listen, we only have one problem, and I think we can do it, solve.

This week there was a report, it seems, in Guardian, which is not pro-Trump publication, which says, that this week with Strait of Hormuz exported more oil, than since the beginning of the war. So I think we should need to close somehow this question. Prices for fuel are falling, and I think this means, that inflation will decline. She already decreases faster, than expected, but then we can get a discount rate. I think that actually now no one takes into account possibility of reduction bet here. All are only waiting increase. So, you know, if we could to get relief, rate cuts, I mean, again yes, economy will fly even higher.

We have two complex auctions ahead of us. And I think that the Ministry of Finance will be able to do well with them to cope, simply because Scott is very understands well how it is to do, and, frankly telling how to perform this work. But how only we will get through these two auctions, I am more inclined to Saxe's camp. I agree to some extent with you. Will appear more and more evidence that to do based on because of what is happening in Europe. I don't know whether you are following this, but France now going through a lot complex budget talks. And they are going to cut the budget is probably $50-75 billion that, how can you imagine in France, there is the epicenter of what this is a one-way street to the rapid growth debt ratio to GDP. And therefore, when the French begin to make cuts, and this is what I was talking about in February, why were they forced to surrender? Because of long-term rates. So, this is happened.

Andy Burnham, which, you know, accidentally became Prime Minister Great Britain, yesterday for a whole hour represented his political platform. This is truly madness. What he says. This is extremely rigid form socialism, which he intends to impose United To the Kingdom. And then to return to again Europe. And that's why he will try to cancel Brexit. He will try double and triple the size of the government. None mentions of growth. How can you develop private economy? Madness. So, that what will we see from both these places during next year, I think it will tell us what we will have to to do in the United States.

But I inclined to think that we will see a little more growth than expected. I inclined to think that we probably we'll see a little more views. And I think that people underestimate that the fact that we are already far away not so dependent on oil, as before. So although we used to eagerly watched at Brent and WTI prices and all that, I don't think it has something like this great importance, as once. And I think that madness, because betting paradigm, currencies, petrodollars—all these interconnected things, that used to move the world economy, now changing like this, as, in my opinion, no one is finished understands. And this is very good for the United States. Therefore, I believe what should we start precisely from this.

Speaker B: One problem is that that gasoline prices are gas stations increased by 50% since the start of the war in Iran. And that beats a lot as usual to the consumer. This can not very much to collapse the indicators GDP through industry, but real cost life for the average person human...

Speaker C: Can I, can I? something to say? Yes. I have seen these numbers. The prices are terrible, and I feel sorry for the people who have to carry these costs. But I think important to say that it's not about the raw materials. It's about recycling. For decades we closed oil refinery infrastructure that could use United States. Of course? So now we need how Sak said, "Russians, the Chinese—us need as much as possible capacities for processing to take all this oil and to turn it into suitable for use of form. So I hear you, but I consider it important to recognize where exactly is a limitation. The limitation is not in oil.

Speaker B: Restrictions in decades using obsolete oil refineries factories. Yes, I was just about to...

Speaker D: I'm sorry to spoil it. this is your parade optimism, but there are two important schedules before intermediate elections. Here is Trump... Well, me, and my main thing belief that what has changed not enough. So American people ...Nick, bring out the first one schedule. If to look at the time since Trump came to power, then, in my opinion, the problem is that nothing has changed. If you look at unemployment, it is not changed. It about the same equal. And if look at inflation, it holds steady on high threes percentage, sometimes reaching four, sometimes descending to 3.2, but never drops to two. And GDP is what American people just doesn't feel it.

AND if you look at this graph, then you will see the biggest strengths Trump. So, you have ask yourself how this administration moved from incredibly positive expectations after the emergence of "Trump 2.0" to purely negative results regarding immigration, trade, economy and inflation. AND people's perception is their own reality. And now one gets the impression that Trump and this administration more care about wars on farms and industry than about ordinary people Americans. And this antithesis because Trump promised to their voters. And that, what do you see in these results, indicates that he lost all those independent voters, who attracted the promise of "Trump 2.0", he, of course, never will gain support Democrats and begins lose their own base.

And the base, as you know, now runs away, saying: "Hey, you promised us deport 20 millions of people." That, which I disagree with. But this did not happen. So now he loses everything these key positions, those things that should have been his strong side. And here it is the question arises: what happening in this administration, if they can't even to talk about problems that are worried the American people? And, obviously, war simply destroyed the popularity of this administration among their own base. According to everyone surveys, they undergo a devastating defeats at intermediate elections. And, of course, Trump—if anyone can get a rabbit out of a hat, then this Trump, because he already won, despite poll predictions. But it doesn't look like it very good, gentlemen. You could justify Sachs results the last few quarters, but...

Speaker A: Let me answer this.

Speaker D: Certainly.

Speaker A: And, by the way, I would like everything to be it was different. I wanted I wish we had it now there was 2% inflation.

Speaker D: What is your forecast? As do you think that will it happen?

Speaker A: Honestly, I just looking at Polymarket, open here Polymarket. I think the chances are that the Democrats will win in both wards, constitute about 70-80%. By the way, the next the four of us for a week let's create a group on Polymarket, where we will do everything our forecasts. AND then the audience can follow us and see if ours will come true foresight. I am not an expert on polls, Chamate, but I think that if start with people who really put money, that is 63% probability that Democrats will take Senate. 93%—that they will take the Chamber representatives, and if to put it together, there is chance that they will gain control over both. You know who knows how it is with those polls? I think, I would look...

Jason Calacanis: First at Polymarket. And if you could get closer there, what are the chances that they will take both of them there now? Victory 64% that they—they'll take everything, so.

David Sacks: Okay, let me say that, in my opinion, not so with this analysis.

Jason Calacanis: Okay, continue.

David Sacks: So, okay, look. So, I assumed this mistake in 2022 year. For example, I was certain that in 2022 there will be a "red wave". This was when Biden was president, and these were his by-elections [midterms], do you understand? And this ended in a "red stream" [red trickle]. I mean, it was very disappointing for Republicans, you know, they got growth, but it was not defeat. So, what mistakes did I assume? It was what I was just watching on perception and didn't watch enough to reality, and not balanced reality. Here, for example, ratings of Biden was in the area of 30%. He was very low then, and inflation was 9%, but if you look on GDP growth and unemployment, these indicators were actually quite strong. So, you know, there was a lot of talk about humiliation economy based on one variable, which was inflation, and she was too high, and it was a problem, but there were also other variables that were actually quite good. So, the reality that people felt was not as bad as, you know, this hyperbolized look that again, yes, all sociologists [pollsters] have an incentive somewhat to exaggerate things, and all political technologists [strategists] always panicking for the sake of ratings. But yes, it's good for ratings, but the reality is this: the American people, look, they voted for red, not understand me wrong, but this was not that massive wave that everyone expected. It was more like a "red stream" [red trickle].

David Sacks: I don't think here that we will get a "blue wave". I think we can get something like a "blue splash" [blue ripple]. I have in mind, listen. I think that—listen, in 2022, Biden would like to have the economy that Trump has now. Yes. Yes, we have 3% inflation. This is not 9%, as it was under Biden. Yes, the prices for gasoline is a bit high, but GDP growth wonderful. It is accelerating. Unemployment is great. Labor force participation wonderful. Poverty, poverty line—perfectly. Yes. I think Republicans will surprise people and will preserve the Senate. Good. I think, you know, most people believe that Republicans will lose the House of Representatives. I think this is probably the consensus, but no huge wave will be. I think if Democrats will win, then with minimal distance, and Hakeem Jeffries will be the real main to hold everyone back with pain, holding these Democrats from DSA in bridle. Do you remember when Kevin McCarthy headed the House of Representatives, he had a very shaky majority, and he lost his position as speaker because he couldn't hold the Freedom Caucus. I think Hakeem Jeffries will have very similar problems if Democrats take the House of Representatives. So look, I even noticed that Mark Halperin all last month prophesied a "blue tsunami", but already starts from this to renounce. Therefore, I believe that the democratic, pro-blue moods have reached the peak probably near two weeks ago, and since then economic indicators for the president were very positive. Republicans need to come out and tell this story. You know, you cannot all the time do this pessimism. We have to change it for the better. I think we just neutralized all this AI safety issue in the White House. So, I think that next month, actually—

Chamath Palihapitiya: If there had been no war, which, in your opinion, would be the situation?

David Sacks: Well, look, I mean, again, I said that the only missing link here—these are diesel prices. So, if you lower price of diesel fuel, it will be the last key to inflation containment. This will lower the rates, and the economy will recover GDP growth rate at 5%.

Chamath Palihapitiya: So without war, do you think that Republicans could get full victory? Or are there ways of solving this diesel problem?

David Sacks: I mean, and look, for the last week, that's the message in news, right? You know, I don't know what actually takes place in the Strait of Hormuz, but according to everyone's publications, they just taken out a record number of oil from there. And they do night transportation with the lights off, or something like that.

Jason Calacanis: Yes, interesting.

David Sacks: In short, look, if we can do it to complete... Look, I am for this to finish, not understand me wrong, but I think the president made it clear that he will do it. He doesn't want to be pressured into doing it before the election. He said it very clearly.

Jason Calacanis: You know what, in your opinion, what will happen here? Forecast for elections, with one month left before them.

Chamath Palihapitiya: According to the figures which I see, the Senate is a big question, but I think it will remain behind Republicans. And I think the Democrats will have a small majority in the House of Representatives.

Jason Calacanis: Okay, just like Sacks.

Chamath Palihapitiya: And I think that the way which the president can, as it were, consolidate success, is to focus on economic achievements and dispel the narrative about doom. And if he succeeds in focusing on this next one month, I think the Republicans have good chances. But the converse is also fair. If you can turn away people's attention and focus on one or two problems such as fuel prices, and continue to fuel the narrative about doom, then the Democrats will have a chance for a better result. So, I think it all comes down to this, Jason. Can you focus on several issues, such as fuel prices, or do you look wider at the economy as a whole? That's on the one hand. And whether you consider superintelligence as a constructive force for GDP growth, or buy into the narrative about doom? And I think we will see who is better organized and who conveys their message most clearly. And the one who does it will definitely win the House.

Jason Calacanis: Yes, I think, Friedberg, that doomerism is not a winning agenda. All what I can say: Trump promised not to start war, but did it. He promised to overcome inflation, but did not. Point. And I think that Democrats will win by a large margin. What is your opinion about what will happen, Friedberg? Do you have any insider information for us?

David Friedberg: Yes, I think a more important question is what will happen between the years 26 and 28.

Jason Calacanis: Come on, answer it. This was my next question. I mean, what do you think will happen between the 26th and 28th years? You know, regardless of whether there will be a split or complete victory.

David Friedberg: Yes, I think that's it—some kind of consequences, and it's not just a split or complete victory. I think between the 26th and the 28th, this will happen over the years: how far to the left Democrats will go and how much it will take root? And as far as Republicans will split on this populism, and whether these populists will merge? And then we will find ourselves in a situation of a socialist capture of America.

Jason Calacanis: You mean the "America First" movement, Tucker Carlson's move?

David Friedberg: I don't really know. Is this even... Well, you know, you remember, it was the "Tea Party", a whole bunch of manifestations of these social emotions, such public moods. They all somehow flow into different words, different parties, and various groups. Who knows where this leads? It is unlikely that the first manifestation is the one that will take root, will hold out, and become the largest. I have in mind—look, I would say that the "Tea Party" of some kind laid the foundation for MAGA years later.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Yes, of course. Aha.

David Friedberg: But this kind of populist movement... If you look on its first derivative, it is still positive. That is, populist sentiments in America are still growing. And this is what I am worried most of all, because I really think that this is where individual freedom is destroyed. Because, you know, populism actually requires bigger government.

Speaker A: for solving our personal problems. AND I'm worried that we have Crises are brewing: Crisis number one is social software; crisis number two—level rate and its impact on accessibility; crisis number three—the idea that asset tax will decide at least some problems. Although actually, as I already said before, if withdraw 100% of the capital all billionaires in United States as one-time tax, this will finance the work of the federal government only for one year. All the money billionaires together—it's only one year federal spending government. Introduction asset tax nothing significant will change. Will be necessary fundamental restructuring how we tax and how we we spend. Needed or tax middle class, where concentrated 160 trillions of dollars out of 183 trillion dollars net of America's capital, or to massively reduce expenses, or completely restructure social programs,—and all this is very unpopular steps. All three of these paths are deep unpopular. Therefore, when something is very Is it becoming unpopular? not the only way that is happening? And exactly I am afraid of this the most, and I think, that all this will come to climaxes between the 26th and 28 years old. I think this is will determine the political calculation on the eve of the 28th year. This will be exciting, and we will be witnesses this.

Jake: I don't know whether Did you have time while you were there? busy here, but there was a kidnapping airplane/terrorist act, I think, is the only one way to describe it. Fly Dubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv. Aboard there were 174 passengers, and Omani pilot, probably hit the captain with a knife and tried to break airplane style 11 September. Passengers brave him neutralized, and, surprisingly, there were pilots on board who were not on service. I mean, what are the chances? And, uh, they somehow during this terrorist who tried to shoot down airplane, Friedberg, were able not only eliminate it, but also to land pilots who were not in execution, in the cabin, align plane and safe touch down. One of the most amazing displays of bravery with this co-pilot, who fought off, uh, terrorist, and then three or four passengers were able to to get into that cabin, pull this out, uh, terrorist and, uh, yes, to land a plane. Your thoughts, Friedberg.

Friedberg: Well, I mean, eyewitness testimony appeared quite a lot quickly and violently, because these guys have access to the internet, as soon as were able to land in Saudi Arabia, and started providing your reports. But what, in my opinion, it was most impressive aspect in everything this, despite the fact that I thought it was incredible heroism and bravery and simply a true manifestation of the human spirit, was the way it is covered by the media. And I was deep sad because I remember September 11th. I I remember the shock, the anger and stories that appeared that day. I I remember the media, that what, what news channels were my source truth. And I watched this all day. And then This happened yesterday. And, and Here, here's an example. It New York Times cover the day after 11 September. Stolen planes destroy the towers-twins and, please attention to this, hit to the Pentagon per day terror. And it really is It was a day of terror. It was really tragic event in history of mankind. Regardless of your political or social beliefs then or now. Loss of lives in this case, loss of life in conflict that followed, loss lives in conflicts around October 7th and after that—all this Tragically, all of this terror and all that terribly. And the reports yesterday about this event, which I found somewhat emotionally anxious, were almost like a strange submission of this experience as a quarrel between two friends who are not got along. The pilot entered the, uh, yes, entered a fight, according to initial messages, yes.

Friedberg: The first was the New York Times, who came out and said, that it was a conflict. AND then the magazine called it's a struggle. BBC called it a fight between pilots. Sky News named this is a fight between pilots. AFP called you know, they said, that they were fighting. Even CNN said that it was a conflict. And in the same time appeared straight eyewitness reports about that this guy tried to capture plane and crash it. And it was clearly terrorist event. AND we stopped for some reason use the word "terror", because when we say "terror", this does not allow us politicize and create parties conflict or long-term narratives that, as me, trying promote more part of the media. And I don't I will try to say, What is theirs? narrative and who exactly is it does. But here the next day on on the New York Times website. So this is the next one the day when already all the facts have emerged affairs. What happened? It the front page of the New New York Times today, in a day, with everyone witnesses, with all journalism, which would allow you confirm testimony of many people about what happened on this flight, where investigators are trying establish a motive. The story is that this the guy tried crash the plane, full passengers. He hijacked the plane. He tried to do it. First point: airplanes 737 survived huge load. Second: investigators are trying find a motive. And in third point: Israeli politicians used the attack, to try to score points on elections this month.

Friedberg: So I just kind of I was disappointed yesterday and today in how media characterize facts on the ground: what is human tragedy, there is terror, and that, on their look, in their texts, it is ultimately becomes a way to sell, unfortunately, a narrative that is too popular and what will help them earn money. And they don't want to lose the audience, saying something wrong, they want to say that, which is considered correct. And I don't know, who exactly is behind all of this. But for me it was quite shocking how much the landscape has changed people we are trust—whom we we call journalists to they told us the truth about what happening—in 25 years, and they are trying twist these terrible events, because they are not quite fit into specific narrative, which ones are they trying to sell for some time now. So I was very upset with all this I wanted to to say this.

Speaker C: Completely justified sorry. Two different I...I...I...I think that must be expressed Many thanks to the pilot. Incredible. You read the reports: he is not went to the restroom because had suspicions that his co-pilot something will do. He asked emergency kit for urination and remained in the cabin, to go to the toilet in this package. Right then that guy tried to kill him. He fought back him. He, despite knife wounds and blood loss, heroically opened cabin door and called the passengers for help, after why several heroes intervened, saved the situation and over 170 lives. Here is the story. It a story about terror. It story about a human heroism. I don't care where are these people from? Me no matter who is which religion. I don't care who has what political interests. This is a story, which must be told, but the media they twist it some nonsense about Israelis politicians who trying to earn points—that's it trying to sell Today The New York Times on his first columns.

Jake: Yes.

Speaker C: In contrast stories about what actually here happened. And then The New York Times, you know, received so much critics who started... Jake, I know you Can you explain this? but...

Jake: Yes, yes. And The New account York Times Communications says referring to early tweet: "Hey, there ...there was a fight there." « Quote: our headings and coverage in live broadcast contain all the facts, which we can confirm as needed their confirmation." « Unlike activists and supporters, we are not publish assumption or unverified information". "Here gift link to follow ours reports, and so on "other." "So, I guess, There are two topics here, Sax. You do you have a problem real time, that, certainly, very different from 11 September. And it was attack where people are quite quickly took over responsibility,

主持人：if my memory serves me does not betray. And in this case to us only remains guess: lone wolf , a coordinated attack etc. But at least, It's strange that the next they can't to call it a terrorist act. A little strange. Yours Thoughts, Sachs?

David Sacks：Well, I think we can. to conclude, What was the motive? That is it was terrorism. Uh, it was Dubai airline, but, it seems everyone the passengers were by the Israelites. Yes. Another detail that I found it interesting: when the pilot called for help, it seems , several passengers burst into the cabin. Terrorist extraction from there Israeli plumber. Class. Yes. He...he... I don't think this is any kind of "CIA" plumber. I think he...I think he a real plumber. Yes, this guy has... These...these Israelites cool, I must say. They...they are quite cool. And to have such courage to do so jump into the cockpit.

David Sacks：AND here I am, I have to mind how much it by chance...and me I suppose that conspiracy theorists now they are going crazy, but what was achieved to have two pilots, who were able to land this plane, —it's simple fantasy; and I am very glad that people's lives was saved. I I will leave the nonsense. about "operations under "false flag" and so on for conspiracy theorist show. Someone else can to do this question.

主持人：Chamate, Listen, we are many. What did they say here? about this. Glad, that everyone is safe. Some final thoughts before completion?

Chamath：Omani citizen stabbed Indian pilot a then tried to shoot down a plane, full Israelites. This is what happened. And any an attempt to hide these facts are cowardice. I worked in Israel. IN I was left there. incredible memories. I I think that in some we all deserve a moment take a step back and to realize that what happened on October 7, it was terrible. That which takes place in Palestine, too terribly. But you can't now see such things and ignore them, because you care about narrated more than about the facts.

Chamath：It was 150, 170 sincere ordinary people who lived their life. People, yes. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, children. They are not deserved it, to fall into the ground and to die. So I think, what is this idea, as if it could be to keep quiet about something happening—enough already. And I think we we need to find a way to really speak the truth about how it is actually. So I was very, very, very disappointed with how The media covered it.

Chamath：And I I think that's it. dangerously. And I think, that this is further proof that these people don't have at all no moral authority in society. They just pathetic, disgusting. And they, to things coordinated. When you see one and the same words again and again again: "combat", " "fight", "fight"— it has a big impact. It means that it comes from one sources. And I think that if you believe that read this and you get the facts, then This is not true.

Chamath：And therefore, Well, that hints at something. that one guy did something wrong another, and they began fight. This is not what happened. This is what this is hinting.

主持人：I I am trying to provide most lenient interpretation, type Why? to protect their position. So, in that moment if you don't knew what had happened, but then, you know, after events, you would very easily could say " potential terrorist ". Live footage, I have on mind, from the plane.

Chamath：Of course. But how can just say after this, that this suicide? Here in why my opinion. In that moment you could say, "Hey, you're not you know what is happening". You want to be careful: is this suicide, or real fight, is this terrorist attack. Okay, let it be. I can assume that there is a place for that to say, "Okay." But what about after that? it can't be said that this is obvious terrorist act or act mentally sick person? These are two opportunities in this situations. Period, without discussions. And then you really should to figure out what Is there motivation here?

David Sacks：Yes. Look, I think that moral principle here is that all attacks on there are civilians incorrect. And exactly this was it, and that was it, I mean, enough. clearly by act terrorism. AND regardless of whether whoever does this is the one what should we do condemn. Even when military is ongoing conflict, attacks on there are civilians unacceptable. Yes. And this is a lonely one case. And you know, this happens many. So it's not the only case. But all this has to stop.

主持人：OK. It was the 291st All-In episode for October 2 2026. See you later. you next week. See you later. See you later. May your winners are moving forward. Rain Man, David Sachs. And I said, "We opened access to the fans, and they just went crazy from this." I love you, Sax. My Queen Kin Lau. The besties are back. This is my dog. defecated on your entrance, Sachs. Oh, man. See you at the bar. We all just need to rent a room and to organize a huge orgy, because there are so many sexual...it's like so sexy the voltage they I just need to somehow to splash out. Wet your beer glasses legs. Wet your beer glasses legs. Legs. Moisten. We need to do merch. The besties are back.